Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

EASTBOURNE HARBOUR BILL [Lords]

Order for consideration, as amended, read

To be considered tomorrow

CORN EXCHANGE BILL

OCEAN TRANSPORT AND TRADING
(DELIVERY WARRANTS) BILL

STANDARD AND CHARTERED BANK BILL

MERSEYSIDE METROPOLITAN RAILWAY BILL

As amended, considered: to be read the Third time.

BRITISH RAILWAYS (No. 2) BILL
(By Order)

LONDON TRANSPORT BILL (By Order)

Orders for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Tuesday next.

Oral Answers to Questions — DEFENCE

Oral Answers to Questions — Service Personnel (Rent and Rate Rebates)

Mr. James Johnson: asked the Secretary of State for Defence to what extent members of Her Majesty's Forces are having to claim rent and rate rebates.

The Minister of State for Defence (Mr. William Rodgers): The total number drawing rebates under the Forces' rent and rates rebate scheme on 31st December last was just under 7,500.

Mr. Johnson: Is my hon. Friend aware how disturbing— indeed, shocking— I find his statement? Will he at the earliest possible moment call this matter to the attention of the Armed Services Pay Review Body to see whether we can get better remuneration in what I believe to be a most unsatisfactory state of affairs?

Mr. Rodgers: I do not agree that it is shocking. It is wrong that anyone should feel there is indignity involved in getting a rebate. The figures show that Service men do not live in a privileged position. I certainly agree that these figures are relevant to the decisions that the independent review body will be making in due course.

Oral Answers to Questions — Multi-Rôle Combat Aircraft

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a further statement about the orders for, and supply of, multi-rôle combat aircraft for the Royal Air Force.

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the latest position concerning the order for the multi-rôle combat aircraft, including revisions of numbers, delivery dates and costs since the original plan for 385 at £·4 million each.

Mr. William Rodgers: We plan to order 385 MRCA aircraft and firm orders will be placed at the beginning of the series production phase. The delivery programme is under discussion.
So far as costs are concerned, I have nothing to add to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Evans) on 27th February.— [Vol. 887, c. 225–6.]

Mr. McNair-Wilson: Is it not a fact that both the German and Italian requirements have been reduced on two occasions and that although the Royal Air Force requirement has not been reduced it is now to spread its order over a longer period? In those circumstances, does the figure of £3·4 million at September 1973 prices still hold good, or has the Minister any other estimate to offer the House?

Mr. Rodgers: On the first two questions the answers are "Yes" and "Yes ". On the third, if the hon. Gentleman will refer to my answer on 27th February he will see that I said it was now £3·9 million, the extra figure being accounted for by inflation.

Mr. Allaun: Will my hon. Friend tell us approximately how much extra, on top of the £3·9 million, the RAF version will cost? Is he aware that in West Germany estimates of more than twice £3·9 million are being given? Is there not a considerable point in the supplementary question asked by the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson)?

Mr. Rodgers: The definition of the RAF version is at an early stage. Therefore, I cannot help my hon. Friend with the figure that he would like to have. I am aware that there has been a great deal of speculation about the figures, but those that I have given this afternoon and on previous occasions in this House are not disputed by the authorities in Germany and elsewhere which are responsible for the aircraft.

Mr. Younger: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that not only are the prospects for the MRCA looking encouraging at present but the cost estimates throughout its life, so far, have been very accurate and that the rise has been almost entirely accounted for by inflationary factors?

Mr. Rodgers: The phrase "almost entirely" is about right. It is difficult to make calculations which can be defended against all those who might criticise them. The best estimates that I can make are

that at constant 1969 prices and exchange rates the anticipated cost, at a very early stage, of about £1·5 million would be about £1·9 million now. Therefore, the increase attributable to changes in design is very small.

Oral Answers to Questions — North Sea Oil Rigs

Mr. Townsend: asked the Secretary of State for Defence to what extent the proposals he announced in his statement on 11th February provide a defence of individual rigs and platforms, as opposed to a patrol and surveillance exercise.

Mr. William Rodgers: The number of rigs and platforms in the North Sea is expected to grow to about 100 and it would clearly not be practicable to provide each of them with individual protection. The ships and aircraft referred to in my statement will provide essentially a surveillance capability.

Mr. Townsend: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the considerable criticism of the Government's proposal amongst independent defence experts? Does not the recent incident concerning a Soviet trawler in the area suggest the need to have naval helicopters available in the area? Will he reconsider his proposal in the light of the wide range of criticism directed at it?

Mr. Rodgers: I think that the hon. Gentleman is being less than generous. Of course, there is a continuing public debate about this difficult question— I would not quarrel with that at all— but to say that there has been considerable criticism is wrong. There has been widespread understanding of what we are seeking to do. If experience demands, or new circumstances recommend, some change of plan, we shall be willing to consider it, but on our best assumptions at present, what we are proposing makes good sense.

Sir John Gilmour: Does the Minister of State agree that if our Armed Forces were in charge of anything as valuable as an oil production platform, they would guard it day and night?

Mr. Rodgers: That is a very interesting question. I am not quite sure about the conclusion which the hon. Gentleman himself would draw from that.

Oral Answers to Questions — Her Majesty's Ships (V/STOL Aircraft)

Mr. Roper: asked the Secretary of State for Defence how many ships in service with the Royal Navy are at present capable of operating vertical take-off aircraft.

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Roy Mason): A number of ships in the Royal Navy would, to a varying degree, be capable of operating V/STOL aircraft.

Mr. Roper: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Will he say how many ships he expects will be able to operate such aircraft by 1980?

Mr. Mason: By 1980 HMS "Invincible" should be commissioned. Possibly HMS "Hermes" will still be in commission by that time. Platforms on Royal fleet auxiliaries could be quickly converted for short-term operations.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: Does the Secretary of State realise how important it is that the Navy should continue to have ships that can operate vertical takeoff aircraft, from the point of view of the prevention of war rather than waging war, because it is in this respect that manned aircaft have such an advantage over a missile?

Mr. Mason: As the hon. and gallant Gentleman will realise, with the introduction of the new class of Invincible through-deck cruisers, the platforms will be there if necessary.

Mr. Churchill: I recognise the difficulties that the Secretary of State is having with certain of his hon. Friends, but is it not clear that British employment interests and British export and balance-of-payments interests require a very early go-ahead for the V /STOL aircraft required for these ships?

Mr. Mason: That is a different question, and one which arises later on the Order Paper. The hon. Gentleman should also understand that I do not have difficulties with my hon. Friends. There are occasional misunderstandings, but on the whole we get on well together.

Oral Answers to Questions — Helicopters (Rescues)

Mr. Hardy: asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will make

a statement on the number of people rescued by Royal Naval helicopters in each of the past five years.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy (Mr. Frank Judd): Complete figures are available only from 1972 and are as follows: 1972, 25; 1973, 62; 1974, 160— making a total of 247.
These statistics cover only those Royal Naval helicopters within the United Kingdom search and rescue region; rescues by ship-borne helicopters are not normally recorded.

Mr. Hardy: Is the Minister aware that the information that he has given suggests a very real achievement? Does he not feel that all those involved in these rescue activities deserve great commendation and wholehearted approbation?

Mr. Judd: I am certain that I speak for all of my colleagues when I thank my hon. Friend for those very appropriate remarks. Certainly we wish to pay a warm tribute to all those who operate this service, in not only the Royal Navy but the Royal Air Force.

Mr. Costain: Does the Minister appreciate the efforts that some of us have made to ensure that this service is maintained, particularly in the South-East? After these figures, will he give an assurance that no one will be able to persuade him to stop the service?

Mr. Judd: This service will remain as important in the future as it has been in the past.

Oral Answers to Questions — Cyprus

Mr. loan Evans: asked the Secretary of State for Defence how many Service men have been satisfactorily resettled in the United Kingdom home base since their return from Cyprus in August 1974; and if he will make a statement.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Air Force (Mr. Brynmor John): Relatively few Service men returned to the United Kingdom in August, although 3,657 Service families came back to the United Kingdom at about that time. All the families have been satisfactorily resettled, either in Service accommodation or through private arrangements.

Mr. Evans: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. What consideration is being given to withdrawing from the base completely? Is it not necessary for us to think in terms of an international peacekeeping force in the area, so that the families of all Service men there can be brought back to Britain?

Mr. John: My hon. Friend will know that in the defence review consideration is being given to the future of the Cyprus base, among other considerations, and I cannot possibly anticipate that review.

Mr. Onslow: Will the hon. Gentleman say whether satisfactory arrangements have been made to reimburse families who lost property through looting or other causes during the disturbances in Cyprus? What steps are being taken to safeguard properties which have not yet been subject to looting?

Mr. John: As I understand it, the situation regarding future looting is satisfactory. On the arrangements for the compensation of families, the hon. Gentleman will know that they have been subjected to quick and sympathetic consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions — Recruitment

Mr. Teddy Taylor: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what was the total net recruitment to the Armed Forces in January; and what were the comparable figures for January 1974 and January 1973, respectively.

Mr. John: The number of recruits, all ranks male and female, joining the Regular Forces in January 1975 was 4,037. The comparable figure in January 1974 was 3,745 and in January 1973, 4,529.

Mr. Taylor: Does the Minister agree that the figure is very encouraging, showing a marked increase in recruitment? Will he give an assurance to the people of Glasgow that if an approach is made to the Government to assist those people with moving 50,000 tons of accumulated rubbish, the Government will give it sympathetic consideration?

Mr. John: On the first part of the question, certainly the recruitment this year, which has totalled 36,000 so far, as compared with 27,000 last year, is very encouraging. The hon. Gentleman's

second question is a matter for the Scottish Office and for my hon. Friend the Minister of State, who is, I understand, discussing the matter today.

Mr. Dempsey: Will my hon. Friend state what is the estimated wastage arising out of this recruitment, after the recruits have entered the Services?

Mr. John: The question of wastage can never be properly quantified. All that we are concerned to do by the frankness of our recruiting material and the knowledge which we disseminate about Service life is to ensure that the wastage of trained recruits is as low as possible.

Oral Answers to Questions — Northern Ireland

Mr. Lawson: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received concerning the payment of compensation to the dependants of members of Her Majesty's Armed Forces who have lost their lives as a result of terrorist activities in Northern Ireland; and what replies he has sent.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army (Mr. Robert C. Brown): Since the beginning of the year, I have received six representations about the payment of such compensation. In my replies, I explained how sizeable lump sums and pensions are paid to dependants, and how these payments have to be taken into account by the courts in assessing the compensation.

Mr. Lawson: Despite the fact that he has had only six complaints, does the Minister not agree that there is widespread unease on this matter, in that under the existing 1968 legislation the amount of compensation payable is often pitifully small and in some cases almost nothing, that it is based on wholly inadequate criteria and that it often requires very distressing questionnaires to be completed by widows immediately after bereavement? What does the hon. Gentleman propose to do or to recommend his right hon. Friends to do to improve this rather scandalous situation?

Mr. Brown: I am aware that there is considerable feeling on this issue and, equally, that there have been what have been regarded as a number of offensive questions. But the operation of the


Criminal Injuries to Persons (Compensation) Act (Northern Ireland) 1968 is, as the House knows, a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. I shall most certainly draw to his attention what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Mr. Powell: Will the Minister ensure that whenever the announcement is made of sums of compensation, steps are taken to present them in the context of the full benefits to which there is entitlement, thus avoiding the widespread misunderstanding and unjustified indignation which arise from the apparent disparity between these and civilian awards?

Mr. Brown: I shall certainly give consideration to the point that the right hon. Gentleman raises. Whether it would be desirable in every case to say precisely just what compensation and benefit a widow should receive is something that we would have to consider. Clearly, that is, in effect, what the right hon. Gentleman is suggesting. But I shall certainly consider this matter.

Mr. Goodhart: Will the Minister now carry out a thorough-going review of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act to the extent that it affects Service men, as there is widespread dismay about the way in which Service widows are interrogated and about the sums concerned?

Mr. Brown: As I have already said, this is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, and no doubt he will be apprised of all that has been said here this afternoon. I can give the assurance that some of the more offensive questions, or the questions which have been regarded as offensive, to dependants are under consideration at present.

Oral Answers to Questions — Aviation Industry

Mr. James Lamond: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received from workers and management in the aviation industry with regard to the effects of the proposed defence cuts.

Mr. William Rodgers: We have received a number of representations aimed at clarifying, and in some cases modifying, the effects of the proposed defence review measures on individual

companies. I have also received a deputation of workers from Hawker Siddeley Aviation.

Mr. Lamond: When my hon. Friend was carrying out his welcome and necessary defence review, did he regard part of his responsibility to lessen as much as possible the impact on jobs in the aviation industry? If he did, will he consider setting back the delivery dates of some of the aircraft ordered from Hawker Siddeley Aviation by his Department so that a more even level of employment may be maintained in the industry? Further, will he consider discussing with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry the possibility of reconsidering the position of the HS146? That would provide a welcome job extension for the men who are affected by possible redundancies due to the defence review.

Mr. Rodgers: I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry will bear in mind my hon. Friend's later remarks. I am sure that my right hon. Friend is fully aware of the views that have been expressed in the House about the HS146. As regards my hon. Friend's earlier remarks— yes, at all stages of the defence review my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has had in mind the likely employment impact of the savings which he has sought to achieve. I must say again what I have said before, namely, that it is not possible to achieve the sort of savings that we have chosen to make, and about which we have been pressed, without there being some painful consequences in employment terms. We shall do all that we can to soften them, but I cannot give an undertaking that despite the consultations we shall maintain an aircraft programme which is unrelated to needs as we see them.

Mr. Kilfedder: In view of the growing number of unemployed in Northern Ireland, will the Minister make an effort to save the jobs of 200 people at RAF Sydenham who will be made redundant before the end of this year? Will the Minister ensure that the Buccaneer contract, which was filched from RAF Sydenham and given, as I understand it, to St. Athan, in the constituency of the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Air Force, will be returned to RAF


Sydenham to protect employment at that base?

Mr. Rodgers: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not wish the House to misunderstand the implications of his remarks. However, I have taken note of what he said, and so has my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Newens: Does my hon. Friend agree that at the end of the war much larger numbers of men engaged in the munitions industry were successfully redeployed? Is there any reason for our not being able successfully to redeploy these men when so many products could be made which could be usefully disposed of on both the export market and the domestic market?

Mr. Rodgers: Historical parallels are always very difficult to sustain. I am not convinced that the parallel which my hon. Friend draws is valid. Of course, Ministers have been concerned all the time that those who might lose their job opportunities as a result of the defence review will find other useful things to do. For that reason we are consulting my right lion. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry.

Mr. Onslow: Will the Minister confirm that the representations he has received from the shop floor have been very strong and that they have focused on the danger of loss of defence sales overseas which may follow if projects on order for our Services are cut? Do the calculations of likely redundancies include the redundancies that must flow if these defence orders do not materialise?

Mr. Rodgers: It is true that the representations have been very strong. It is not true that they have been principally concerned with export orders. It is true that if we were to lose export orders there would be consequences for employment.

Oral Answers to Questions — Maritime Harrier Aircraft

Mr. Lane: asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will make a further statement about plans for the maritime Harrier.

Mr. Pattie: asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he is now in a

position to make a statement on the future of the naval Harrier.

Mr. Mason: I have nothing to add to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Watkinson) on 11th February by my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence.

Mr. Lane: So that the Government may come to an earlier decision to go ahead with the maritime Harrier, will the right hon. Gentleman consider two points in particular? First, will he bear in mind that without the Harrier the future all-round effectiveness of the Royal Navy will be much less? Secondly, will he bear in mind that unless the British Government show faith in this aircraft its great export potential will not be realised?

Mr. Mason: On the hon. Gentleman's first point, the Royal Navy has always recognised that if the maritime Harrier received the go-ahead it would be an added operational capability, especially as regards the new through-deck cruisers that will be coming into operation in the 1980s. Export potential will be entirely dependent upon whether anyone is prepared to purchase a type of vessel that will be able to act as a landing platform for the maritime Harrier.

Mr. James Johnson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is intense anxiety about defence cuts amongst the workers of North Humberside? Thousands of Hull men in that area work at Hawker Siddeley. Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that they want a chance to build not only the HS146, which is a civilian plane, but the Harrier jump-jet?

Mr. Mason: I can well understand the feelings of my hon. Friend on this matter. He will know that my hon. Friend the Minister of State and others have received deputations from Brough, Hull. The project has not been abandoned; it is still alive. The design is going ahead and it is being funded by Her Majesty's Government. In present economic circumstances I cannot at the moment go ahead with a new military project likely to cost tens of millions of pounds.

Mr. Goodhew: Is it not the case that the Shah of Iran is prepared to purchase both the aircraft and the through-deck cruiser to take them? Is he not most anxious to do so? Would not that be


most advantageous to British industry? The Government arc spending tens of millions of pounds on workers' cooperatives that produce uneconomic goods. Would it not be better to spend the money on aircraft that we really need?

Mr. Mason: I want positive proof that there is a distinct order being placed for an expensive through-deck cruiser with a full complement of maritime Harriers. Such an order is not yet before me. That is obviously one of the distinct possibilities of a sale if we decide to go ahead with the combination of both.

Mr. Newens: Is my right hon. Friend able to say what total cost would have to be added to public expenditure if we decided to go ahead with the maritime Harrier? Will he make it clear to Conservative Members, who are continually pressing for cuts in public expenditure, that they must face very clearly what that means in these terms?

Mr. Mason: It is far too early to give the House an estimated cost of the development of the maritime Harrier. It is much too soon in its design stages. As soon as we have taken a decision I shall be able to give the House the figures that it requires.

Mr. Younger: Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that he will give due weight to the fact that this is not any old aircraft project but a unique aircraft which has nothing else in the world to compete with it? Is he aware that it has been working for some time to the complete satisfaction of the United States Marine Corps, on the other side of the Atlantic? Will he reconsider his expression "tens of millions of pound "? Does he not agree that that is a bit of an exaggeration? Will he bear in mind that the Government appear to think it perfectly all right to spend £25 million a year on free contraceptives for all? It is incredible that they cannot afford to spend the money on the maritime Harrier.

Mr. Mason: I hope that the hon. Member has not now decided to describe this as the "contraceptive Harrier ", or we shall never breed any more. I offer him congratulations upon having become the official defence spokesman for the Opposition. I hope that as he questions

us on these matters he will get his facts correct in future. This aircraft has not yet been completed, and therefore it has not been operating on the other side of the Atlantic. First, I have to recognise the military necessity for the go-ahead of the maritime Harrier. Secondly, I have to recognise that we are ahead of the world in this branch of technology, thirdly, that there may be prospects for exports and, fourthly, that it may be a valuable new project for an aircraft industry which is badly in need of work. I have to consider all those factors, but as yet I have not come to a decision.

Oral Answers to Questions — Royal Air Force (Training Aircraft)

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will make a statement on the aircraft requirements for future Royal Air Force navigational flight engineer and pilot training.

Mr. William Rodgers: We plan to meet our future requirement for these kinds of training by a mixture of existing and new types of training aircraft, ground simulation techniques and, possibly, some use of civil resources.

Mr. Huckfield: Is my hon. Friend aware that many Labour Members are in favour of even bigger defence cuts? Does he realise that the conversion of four of the 14 Argosy aircraft is almost complete at Hawker Siddeley Bitteswell, and that it would be more expensive to cancel them than to complete them? If we are to save even more on defence expenditure, is this the right way to do it?

Mr. Rodgers: I am aware that my hon. Friend and others would like even bigger defence cuts. I am not aware, however, that it would be more expensive to cancel than to complete, and I assume that if it is necessary to cancel, this would be consistent with my hon. Friend's views about defence cuts.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: Will the Minister say what type of new training aircraft he has in mind?

Mr. Rodgers: Not at this stage. We are reviewing all the possibilities, and there are some existing aircraft which might be suitable for this rôle. We shall do our best to provide for the RAF's needs at a lower cost than now.

Mr. Park: Is it not a fact that modification of these Argosy planes at Bitteswell would provide the capacity to train engineers and pilots much more economically than can be done at present?

Mr. Rodgers: That is something that I shall look into. However, I must rest at what I said before. Whatever decision we reach about the Argosy— our consultations will continue, and I have taken note of the representations made by the trade unions concerned— it would be more expensive to go ahead than to cancel. That is the choice which Ministers would have to make, and whatever decision we make it will not be popular with some hon. Members.

Oral Answers to Questions — Expenditure Cuts (Redundancies)

Mr. Golding: asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he can yet state what redundancies will occur in North Staffordshire and South Cheshire as a consequence of cuts in defence expenditure.

Mr. William Rodgers: It does not seem likely that these areas will be much affected in terms of redundancies or loss of job opportunities.

Mr. Golding: Is my hon. Friend aware that I am delighted with that answer? Will he make certain that whatever pressure he comes under from our hon. Friends to increase defence cuts, North Staffordshire will not be affected, in employment terms?

Mr. Rodgers: As always, I shall do my very best to draw a fence round my hon. Friend's constituency.

Mr. Churchill: In view of the prospect of rapidly rising levels of redundancy in the aircraft industry in the Greater Manchester area, will the hon. Member say what estimate was made of the loss of jobs in the industry nationally, prior to going ahead with the defence review?

Mr. Rodgers: I cannot give a figure at the moment.

Mr. Churchill: Why not?

Mr. Rodgers: The hon. Members gets too angry too often, and he shows too little patience. We gave an overall figure and we are now examining the detailed implications of the review. As I said,

I have had representations from workers and management in the aircraft industry, and consultations are continuing. The Defence White Paper will be published shortly, but some of these consultations will be continued thereafter. We are trying to find the best possible accommodation, and it takes time.

Mr. Peter Morrison: asked the Secretary of State for Defence how many redundancies he now expects there to be as a result of his proposed defence cuts.

Mr. William Rodgers: The Defence White Paper will give details of the likely scale of redundancies amongst Service men. So far as redundancies or loss of job opportunities affecting civilian employees of the Ministry of Defence or of defence contractors are concerned, our consultations are continuing. Much will depend on how our proposals are worked out in detail.

Mr. Morrison: Because of the tremendous concern amongst all the forces about continuing employment, will the Minister prior to the publication of the White Paper make a statement about possible redundancies and where they are likely to occur?

Mr. Rodgers: My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is present and it is for him to decide whether, at a busy time, given publication of the White Paper next week, it will be possible to meet the hon. Gentleman's wishes.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Is the Minister aware that many of the engineers who met a deputation of Labour Members of Parliament at two aircraft factories last week would greatly prefer to work on civil rather than military contracts— for instance, on the HS146 and the civil version of the HS748, which would be of great value to the developing nations? Are these workers, who rightly want work, entitled to expect civil alternatives from the Government for their factories?

Mr. Rodgers: Certainly not from the Ministry of Defence, which is not concerned with civil versions of aircraft. My hon. Friend may be right in saying that the workers involved in the aircraft industry prefer work on civil contracts, but I can say that they would prefer work of some kind to no work at all The representations made to me in recent


times have been for such modification as we can secure within the budget fixed by the defence review which will enable them to look forward with less anxiety to their future.

Oral Answers to Questions — North Atlantic Treaty Organisation

Mr. Gow: asked the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to complete the consultations with the NATO allies to which he referred in his statement to the House on 3rd December 1974.

Mr. Mason: The consultations with our NATO allies are nearing completion and I expect to publish details in the Defence White Paper later this month.

Mr. Gow: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what representations have been made to him by our NATO allies about the strength of British forces on the mainland of Europe?

Mr. Mason: I do not think that at this stage I can reveal that to the hon. Member. The White Paper is now being printed, and the conclusions of our consultations with our NATO allies will be embodied in that review. For the information of the House, it will be published next Wednesday 19th March.

Mr. Cryer: Will my right hon. Friend say what consultations he has had with our NATO allies about the removal of the American Polaris bases? When does he intend to carry out this aspect of the Labour Party manifesto policy?

Mr. Mason: On the first part of the question, at this stage there has been none. On the second part, as I have said many times, it will not be possible to have these multilateral talks on the removal of the Polaris bases until we have established conclusions on the conferences of CSCE and MBFR. After that, we may be able to start multilateral talks on the nuclear weaponry that we hold.

Miss Fookes: Will the Minister make clear in the White Paper whether there are any disagreements between ourselves and our allies on what should be done?

Mr. Mason: I think there will be indications of what our allies wish us to do,

and of the extent to which we have acceded to their requests.

Oral Answers to Questions — Fuel Conservation

Mr. David Steel: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement outlining the measures he is taking to conserve fuel.

Mr. John: In last winter's fuel crisis measures were introduced to reduce fuel consumption, and since then we have made every effort to economise in accordance with the general policy of Her Majesty's Government on energy conservation. The measures adopted include restrictions on Fleet consumption, flying, certain types of training, and the use of transport. Close control is also being exercised on the use of fuel for such purposes as heating, lighting and cooking. The Property Services Agency, in consultation with the Ministry of Defence, is also implementing a programme of work to improve the heating efficiency of defence buildings.

Mr. Steel: I thank the Minister for that interesting answer. Is he aware that those parts of the country which have been most severely affected by the Government's fuel conservation measures and by the increase in the price of petrol are, unhappily, those rural areas which are used regularly for overflying on these low-flying exercises? Will the Minister say what quantity of fuel is used on these exercises, and what is the mileage per gallon of these aircraft?

Mr. John: I shall write to the hon. Member about the total consumption and mileage per gallon. The total consumption of oil fuel by Her Majesty's Forces is 4 per cent. of the total bill. Low flying is already restricted to the minimum necessary to retain an operational commitment, and no perceptible reduction in this type of training can now be expected.

Mr. Jessel: Will the Minister say how much fuel is used on the Beira patrol?

Mr. John: The hon. Member will have heard the question asked last time and will have heard my answer to it. He should put down a Question on this subject to the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy.

Oral Answers to Questions — RAF Tern Hill (Helicopter Training Facilities)

Mr. Biffen: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future use of the helicopter training facilities at RAF Tern Hill.

Mr. John: No, Sir. I must ask the hon. Member to wait until the publication of the statement on Defence Estimates.

Mr. Biffen: Even so, will the Minister confirm that when the defence review has been put fully into effect some helicopter training facilities will be maintained at RAF Tern Hill?

Mr. John: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has just announced that the statement will be made on 19th March The hon. Member must await that statement.

Oral Answers to Questions — Middle East

Mr. Hooley: asked the Secretary of State for Defence how many officers and men of the British armed forces are currently serving with the armed forces of other countries in the Middle East; and for what purpose.

Mr. Mason: There are 429 volunteers from Her Majesty's forces serving on loan to the armed forces of countries in the Middle East in training, advisory and executive positions.

Mr. Hooley: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I entirely support the role of the armed forces in the Middle East, in so far as they are involved in United Nations peacekeeping operations and in other operations under the authority of the United Nations? Is he aware, however, that I do not support in any sense the involvement of British armed forces in foreign civil wars such as in Oman? Will my right hon. Friend put an end to that involvement?

Mr. Mason: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for the first part of his remarks. I indicated that these volunteers were active in six different Middle Eastern countries, including Oman. I am aware of the feelings of my hon. Friend and other hon. Members about our activity there, but it has been long-standing practice to allow loan volunteers to friendly

nations, especially to help in training, advisory and executive positions, and this we are continuing to do. The matter may well be covered in the Defence White Paper.

Mr. Blaker: Will the right hon. Gentleman make clear that our forces in Oman are there at the request of the Sultan, and that this so-called civil war would collapse in a matter of weeks if it were not fomented on the side of the so-called rebels from South Yemen?

Mr. Mason: There are bound to be two sides in a conflict. I agree partly with what the hon. Gentleman says. I do not want to deal specifically with Oman, because that would be to pre-empt a Question on that country which appears on the Order Paper.

Oral Answers to Questions — Diego Garcia

Mr. Robin F. Cook: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what expansion has already been made to the base facilities at Diego Garcia.

Mr. Mason: I understand that as United States legislative procedures have yet to be completed the United States Government are not in a position to start work on the expansion to which our agreement was announced on 3rd December.

Mr. Cook: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the United States Congress has been informed that $65 million was spent on this project during 1973–74 and that a further $95,000 is budgeted for expenditure in 1974–75? Is that massive expenditure compatible with the modest expansion which my right hon. Friend indicated to the House? Has he seen recent Press reports that after this extension the base will have nuclear capability for nuclear bombers? Does he appreciate that that would be contrary to United Nations resolutions and the expressed wish of most States around the Indian Ocean?

Mr. Mason: First, I must inform my hon. Friend that what we agreed to in the statement of 3rd December was work additional to that which was agreed in 1972. Secondly, the cost of that additional work, at the most, is $35 million. Thirdly, there are no plans to base ships or aircraft on Diego Garcia, and there will be


no facilities of any kind for nuclear weaponry.

Mr. Mather: Will the right hon. Gentleman give recent figures concerning the number of Soviet ships visiting the Indian Ocean area?

Mr. Mason: I cannot, off the cuff, give the figures. The hon. Gentleman must know, and the House is fully aware, that in recent years there has been increasing Soviet naval activity east of Suez, particularly in the Indian Ocean.

Mr. Dalyell: In the discussions that took place in the Foreign Office last week, between Mr. Wilford and representatives of the Indian Government, were the objections of the Indian Government noted? What is the attitude of the Ministry of Defence?

Mr. Mason: Although I was not involved in the discussion to which my hon. Friend refers, I can say that we took notice of what the Indians and the littoral States said about Diego Garcia and the possibility of a nuclear-free zone in the Indian Ocean. As my hon. Friend realises, the United States and the United Kingdom are prepared to consider an Australian proposal on how best to ensure a nuclear-free zone in that area.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOCIAL CONTRACT (MINISTER'S SPEECH)

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: asked the Prime Minister if the public speech by the Secretary of State for the Environment on 21st February on the social contract and the railwaymen at Grimsby represents Government policy.

Mr. George Gardiner: asked the Prime Minister whether the public speech by the Secretary of State for the Environment on 21st February in Grimsby on breaches of the social contract represents Government policy.

Mr. Michael Latham: asked the Prime Minister if the public speech by the Secretary of State for the Environment to the North Lincolnshire Society of Quantity Surveyors in Grimsby on 21st February on inflation and the social contract represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Edward Short): In the absence of my right hon. Friend in Dublin for the meeting of the EEC Heads of Government, I have been asked to reply.

Yes, Sir.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: If the Secretary of State for the Environment's remarks are in line with Government thinking, does not the Leader of the House agree that as British Rail made a loss of £51·6 million last year, any extra money needed for wages will have to come from a further injection of public money? If the social contract is to have any respectability in any quarter, does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that to ask taxpayers to pay more taxes to meet a wage claim and then to charge them higher rail fares will be intolerable?

Mr. Short: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment made an excellent speech, and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister carried it a stage further this weekend. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was saying that to price the burden of costs of the railways beyond what the traffic can stand will inevitably lead to cuts in services, and that would lead to whole areas being deprived of a rail network, with all that that means in terms of unemployment in the industry and in social and regional terms. In 1975 we are providing £490 million to maintain passenger lines which are uneconomic.

Mr. Gardiner: In that speech the Secretary of State for the Environment also referred to the control of public expenditure and one or two other budgetary matters. Will the Lord President tell us whether the Budget Statement to be presented to the House on 15th April will be the product solely of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's economic judgment or will owe something to the proposals for clobbering the self-employed and small business men now being put to the national executive by the Labour Party?

Mr. Short: I cannot anticipate what the Chancellor will say in his Budget Statement.

Mr. Spriggs: Will my right hon. Friend take into account the fact that there is


an agreed trade union/employer negotiating machinery to deal with these matters and that it is not for Members of Parliament or Ministers to interfere with that agreed machinery?

Mr. Short: Yes, indeed, there is agreed machinery, and we have set the unions and employers free to negotiate their own wage rates. At the same time, we are in a difficult stage of changeover from a statutory system— which brought the country to the verge of ruin a year ago— to a free system. Of course there are problems. All that my right hon. Friend was doing was to urge negotiators to stay within the TUC guidelines.

Mr. Latham: Have the Government any contingency plans if the railways reject the advice of the Secretary of State and settle outside the social contract?

Mr. Short: That is an entirely hypothetical question which I would not venture to answer.

Mr. Thorpe: I welcome the speech made by the Secretary of State for the Environment, but may we know why he was not the subject of a subsequent attack by the Secretary of State for Employment?

Mr. Short: Because he was saying precisely the things which the Secretary of State for Employment has been saying for a long time.

Mr. George Rodgers: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is great resentment among trade unions about the social contract that exists? Does he further agree that the Opposition have devoted most of their time during the past week to defending excessive wealth, property and privilege?

Mr. Short: I certainly agree with the second of my hon. Friend's propositions, but not with the first. The social contract was negotiated over a two-year period—
[HON. MEMBERS: "Social contrast."] In that case, I fully share my hon. Friend's view.

Oral Answers to Questions — TUC (Meetings)

Mr. Skinner: asked the Prime Minister when he next expects to meet the TUC leaders.

Mr. Edward Short: I have been asked to reply.
I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which my right hon. Friend gave the hon. Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley) on 6th March.

Mr. Skinner: Is my right hon. Friend aware that he could do a really good patching-up job this week while the Prime Minister is away in Dublin taking part in the current charade that some people call renegotiation? Instead of meeting the TUC leaders, he could meet the pickets assembled outside the House of Commons. He could take with him their pay slips, showing that for a 40-hour week skilled craftsmen earn only £28·3. He could meet many others—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is the third statement the hon. Member has made. He must ask a question.

Mr. Skinner: I am just finishing. Is my right hon. Friend aware that he could resolve the problem by recommending an interim award to put before the meeting which is taking place on Monday with the Lord Privy Seal?

Mr. Short: My hon. Friend's question is based on two wrong assumptions. The first is that there is something to be "patched up "while my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is away. There is nothing to be patched up. The second is that there is a charade going on in Dublin. There is a very serious piece of renegotiation taking place. It was on that basis that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) fought the last General Election—

Mr. Skinner: I have never varied in my view.

Mr. Short: On the main part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, as I pointed out yesterday this is an unofficial strike, negotiations are going on with the union, and they have not broken down. I hope that it is my hon. Friend's desire— a desire shared by all hon. Members— to persuade the men to go back to work and to listen to their union leaders.

Sir Frederic Bennett: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that another aspect of the situation is that the meeting may take place before the former head of the KGB comes to Great Britain


as an apparently honoured guest of the TUC? If it takes place before then, will the right hon. Gentleman make clear the revulsion of hon. Members on both sides of the House at the visit?

Mr. Short: If the hon. Gentleman tables a Question on that topic to the Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend will be very pleased to answer it.

Sir F. Bennett: Why cannot you?

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION EXPENDITURE (PRIME MINISTER'S SPEECH)

Mr. Brotherton: asked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of his public speech on educational spending on the 21st February at the opening of the Lipman Building of the Newcastle-on-Tyne Polytechnic.

Mr. Edward Short: I have been asked to reply.
My right hon. Friend did so on 24th February, Sir.

Mr. Brotherton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in that speech the Prime Minister talked of education spending overtaking expenditure on defence? Will he assure the House that this does not mean that the present euphoria resulting from the Prime Minister's latest visit to Moscow will lead to another massive cut in defence expenditure?

Mr. Short: There is no connection at all between the very successful visit of my right hon. Friends to Moscow and the Defence White Paper.

Mr. Mike Thomas: Will my right hon. Friend accept from me that he and I very much welcome the visit of the Prime Minister to Newcastle-on-Tyne? Will he also confirm that a section of my right hon. Friend's speech dealt with the Open University? Does he agree about the great value of the university in educational terms to this country and, indeed, to the rest of the world, and think that it should have a high priority in Government policy?

Mr. Short: Indeed, like my hon. Friend, I listened to my right hon. Friend's speech, which I thought excellent,.especially the passage which dealt with

the Open University, particularly since my wife obtained a degree at that university I thought it was a first-rate speech.

Sir David Renton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many of the educational advisory services duplicate the work of Her Majesty's inspectors and overlap with the work of the county education officers, and that there is great scope for a saving in money and staff on some services? Does he agree that many of those engaged in those services would do much better work as teachers?

Mr. Short: Speaking personally— my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science is not here and therefore I am venturing my own opinion— I agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I think there is a case for examining the whole field of advisory services, and also a case for local authorities getting together to provide advisory services. There is a good deal in what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said.

Oral Answers to Questions — CENTRAL POLICY REVIEW STAFF

Mrs. Colquhoun: asked the Prime Minister if he will appoint an expert on parliamentary government to the Central Policy Review Staff.

Mr. Edward Short: I have been asked to reply.
I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which my right hon. Friend gave to the hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Mr. Stanley) on 6th March.

Mrs. Colquhoun: Is it not time that an expert took a long, hard look at some of the existing parliamentary anomalies, such as the "usual channels ", appointments by the Whips' Office to Select Committees, and the bad old continuing practice of appointing only one woman to Committees, and so on? Should not such a person come up with a reform which allows democratic worker participation in the running of the House? Is it not nonsense that although we rank as Members of Parliament for worker participation in industry, we accept such churlish and unsatisfactory situations for ourselves as back benchers?

Mr. Short: I should hate to inflict on the Central Policy Review Staff a "long, hard look" at the "usual channels ". This is not a matter for the review staff. It is certainly a matter for the Procedure Committee. If my hon. Friend would care to come and discuss the matter with me, I should be happy to talk to her. I think we are arriving at a point where in a Session of Parliament in the near future the Procedure Committee could examine our procedure depth.

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: In addition to taking such an expert look at these anomalies— I have the utmost sympathy with the point made by the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mrs. Colquhoun)— does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that since two new Parliaments are about to be set up we shall require two such experts, and that because of those new Parliaments it may be necessary to eliminate some of the anomalies?

Mr. Short: I hope that before very long two elected assemblies will be set up in the United Kingdom. I also hope that they will profit from the very long experience of this Parliament.

Mr. Lawson: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that an expert on parliamentary government, whether or not he is a member of the CPRS, would be able to explain that a referendum on the Common Market or on anything else can only be consultative, and not binding? Would it not be helpful for that to be made clear to the public as a whole?

Mr. Short: The House will debate that subject today. I have said before, as has my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, that the referendum is not binding on Parliament. It cannot be. The Government have agreed that they will accept the result of the referendum. It will be binding on the Government.

Oral Answers to Questions — MIDDLE EAST

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: asked the Prime Minister when he next intends to visit the Middle East.

Mr. Edward Short: I have been asked to reply.
My right hon. Friend has at present no plans to do so, Sir.

Mr. Huckfield: Did my right hon. Friend note that the discussions which recently took place in Beirut between Lord Carrington, as the political representative of the Conservative Party, and Yasser Arafat, the PLO leader, were followed by a terrorist attack on a Tel Aviv hotel, in which 16 people died? Will he confirm that is not Labour policy to negotiate with terrorist organisations?

Mr. Short: In fairness to Lord Carrington, there is no connection between the terrorist outbreak and his visit. Also in fairness to the noble Lord, he did not go there to visit Yasser Arafat. He went there to visit Heads of State. I think I am right in saying that while in Beirut Lord Carrington was asked to meet Yasser Arafat.

Mr. Faulds: Since some of us have had the good opportunity of getting to know Yasser Arafat and his policies, and of appreciating what a social democrat he is, is it not time, since the Prime Minister's contacts in the Middle East seem to be solely Israeli ones, that he should make some effort to get to know some of the Arab Socialist leaders?

Mr. Short: We tolerate the hon. Gentleman, but it is a bit much to ask us to tolerate his friends as well.

Mr. Powell: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the assurance asked for by the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Huckfield) that it is not the policy of the Government to negotiate with terrorist organisations?

Mr. Short: The Government stand ready to do anything they can to help in this difficult situation. No one wishes to do or say anything which would make it more difficult.

Mr. Faulds: That remark was not very helpful. He should remember he is Leader of the House— and deputy leader of our party, God help us.

Mr. Short: Certainly, the Government condemn terrorist attacks, from whatever quarter they come.

HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT (FACILITIES)

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Edward Short): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a further statement about the effect on the House of the unofficial strike by some industrial civil servants.
I must first apologise to the House that the usual arrangements for the supply of papers are subject to delay and restrictions on circulation.
Arrangements have, however, been made for copies of the Order Paper and Notices of Questions, motions and amendments to be available in Vote Office, although later and in more limited numbers than usual. Hansard is not generally available, but copies for reference are available in the Library.
I understand that difficulties have now arisen over postal services. I would therefore advise hon. Members to post their mail at the Parliament Street Post Office or other letter-boxes outside.
I realise that this will cause considerable inconvenience, but I ask for the understanding and co-operation of hon. Members in this difficult situation.
I shall keep the House informed of any fresh developments.

Mr. Peyton: I do not think that there is anything very helpful that anyone can say about the matter, except perhaps to comment that the state we have reached is symptomatic of the degradation into which Parliament and this country have sunk.

Mr. Whitehead: Disregarding that last remark, will my hon. Friend accept that many of us are in extreme difficulties over the mail? If we are being exhorted to post our letters outside the building, may we also collect them from outside the building?

Mr. Short: I shall keep the House informed of any developments. I understand that the postmaster has closed the boxes. Therefore, in order to send their mail, hon. Members will have to post it outside. I regret that very much.

Mr. David Steel: Can the right hon. Gentleman confim that Hansard is being

printed, and it is just that copies are not allowed to be delivered to the House?
What is the position over picketing? Am I correct in understanding that when lobbies come to the House they are not allowed to carry banners outside the building, yet the pickets appear to be carrying banners?

Mr. Short: The hon. Gentleman's latter point concerning what happens outside the House is for the police, not for me. However, I shall make inquiries about it. I think that the least we say about the printing, the better.

Mrs. Wise: Does my right hon. Friend accept that it would be in the best interests of the House, as well as the workers concerned, for him to use any good offices which he may have to encourage a settlement based on the good case that the men have for an increase in their wages? Is my right hon. Friend aware that the men consider that they are exactly the kind of workers that the social contract is supposed to be about—that is, that they are under-paid and are the sort of people to whom we are supposed to give justice? I suggest that that is the most profitable way in which the matter can be pursued.

Mr. Short: Informal discussions are proceeding through my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment with the interested parties. I strongly urge the unofficial strikers to follow the advice of their official union leaders, who have adopted a most responsible attitude throughout the negotiations, and to return to work.

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: The right hon. Gentleman has so far referred to the inconvenience to hon. Members in the dispute. Have he or his colleagues given any thought to the fact that the dispute is a gross interference with the work of Parliament, and that it should be considered from the point of view not only of inconvenience to hon. Members but of their capacity to serve their constituents and the capacity of Parliament to operate freely, which are of such importance to our democracy?

Mr. Short: It would be an exaggeration to say that we have reached that point yet. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it would be an extremely


serious situation if we reached it. But so far, yesterday and today, we have had all the papers necessary for the House and the Committees. They have arrived rather late, and have not been in the usual numbers, but we have achieved that, and we shall continue to try to do so.

Mr. William Hamilton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that no hon. Member on either side of the House should do anything to support the action while it is unofficial? But, assuming that it becomes official, will my right hon. Friend see to it that the grievance of the lower-paid workers, whose basic pay is a disgrace to the House and to the country, is remedied through the official channels in the proper way?

Mr. Short: If the dispute became official, the situation would certainly be different. Negotiations are proceeding. It seems to me that it would be useful if I made information on the wage rates received by the unofficial strikers available to the House. I shall see how I can do that.

Sir John Hall: Whilst I do not wish to comment on the merits of the case, if it is true that copies of the Order Paper are being printed but cannot be delivered here because of the action of pickets who are on unofficial strike, is not that in effect a breach of privilege?

Mr. Short: Privilege is a matter for you, Mr. Speaker, and the Committee of Privileges. So far, the Order Paper has been made available.

Mr. Tinn: None of us would want to interfere with normal negotiating procedures, but is it not a pity that the workers concerned, whose work we normally appreciate and on which we depend so much, did not make their grievances known to hon. Members before taking strike action? I am sure that hon. Members would have considered them sympathetically and have given such support as they might have been able to give before the men took the drastic action of withdrawing their labour.

Mr. Short: I do not think that unofficial action of the present kind will help in any way. The negotiations are going on. I believe that the best interests of

everybody and of the House will be served by trying to expedite those discussions as much as we can.

Mr. Mawby: Will the Leader of the House first pass on the thanks of the House to the staff, who always turn up trumps to give us an Order Paper of some sort? They must be under tremendous pressure, and we should thank them.
With regard to the postal arrangements, will the right hon. Gentleman make certain that we know whether our mail is likely to be delivered here? Our constituents will expect that it has been delivered to us. Can other arrangements be made if necessary, so that we can at least collect our mail and do not have irate constituents under the false impression that we have received it?
Thirdly, is the right hon. Gentleman making sure that outside individuals and bodies which are drastically affected by our deliberations can still obtain the necessary papers, now that they are not being delivered to the House? If not, can they be told where they can obtain them instead?

Mr. Short: I agree with the hon. Gentleman's point, and when the strike is over I shall find a more appropriate and more adequate way of thanking the staff than is possible now, for reasons which the hon. Gentleman understands.
I shall make inquiries about the hon. Gentleman's second point and let the House know about the delivery of letters. I am not sure what the position is. It seems to change from hour to hour.
I do not know of any difficulties experienced by outside individuals and bodies, but if hon. Members know of problems in that respect I shall see that those concerned receive copies of the appropriate papers.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Membersrose —

Mr. Speaker: Order. We have a debate later in which about 60 right hon. and hon. Members will be seeking to catch my eye. We must go on to the next statement.

Mr. Cormack: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to raise a matter of privilege; namely, the action of certain public servants and those inciting them to obstruct the work of Parliament—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is raising his point at the wrong time.

DIRECT GRANT SCHOOLS

The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Reg Prentice): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I will make a statement on the future of the direct grant schools.
The Government have decided that the time has come to implement the pledge in the Labour Party Election Manifesto to stop the present system of direct grant schools. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Wales and I are making this statement to indicate the action we propose to take.
Grant to schools which are unwilling to enter the maintained school system or which it is not practicable to absorb into the system will be phased out, starting in September 1976. Arrangements to safeguard the interests of pupils already in the schools will be made. Meanwhile, I do not propose to make any change in the level of grant.
This decision follows necessarily from the Government's commitment to end all forms of selection for secondary education. The direct grant schools have made an important contribution to the national system of secondary education while that was organised on selective lines, and some of them provided places needed by local education authorities. I hope that as many of them as possible will accept that they can best continue to serve the public by making the adjustments necessary to become an integral part of the local system of comprehensive education as maintained schools. I hope also that local education authorities will recognise the advantages of such a solution and will do all they can to facilitate the transition for schools which are willing to make it.
As a first step, we shall discuss the future arrangements in greater detail with the representatives of the direct grant schools and of the local education authorities. In particular, we shall discuss, in relation to schools willing to become maintained, the problems of capital debt and sub-standard buildings, matters arising from the need to protect the salary and conditions of service of existing staff, and any special issues that might arise

because of the existence of a boarding element at some of the schools. We shall also clarify with them the procedure for phasing out the grants and related features of the present system.
Subsequently the two Departments will get in touch with individual schools, and their local education authorities, to enable decisions to be reached about their future as soon as possible. I believe that it would be generally agreed that from the point of view of all concerned it is now desirable to move as speedily as possible to avoid a protracted period of uncertainty. My aim will be to help the schools reach a decision in principle by the end of the summer term.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Does the Secretary of State realise that his statement today will be treated by the educational world as an unprecedented step of educational vandalism, that it will lower educational standards, that it will decrease parental choice and that, by driving many direct grant schools into the independent sector, it will deprive parents of modest means of educational opportunity?
Secondly, will the right hon. Gentleman give us up-to-date figures of the amounts which parents save the taxpayer by paying fees, which may well be more than £20 million a year? Where will he find that? Where will he find the £3 million to pay off the debt of the Roman Catholic direct grant schools, and where will he find the necessary money to provide places for these children where the schools go independent?
Finally, will the right hon. Gentleman note that the Opposition pledge to reopen the direct grant school list still stands and that we reaffirm it today? Will he note also that we shall rebuild the bridge between the independent and the maintained sector which he has so rashly sought to blow up today, and that we shall see that the schools are not only restored but restored on a legal basis which will make it impossible for them to be destroyed again by ministerial edict?

Mr. Prentice: The House will note the hon. Gentleman's pledge, as he calls it. The only appropriate answer to that is that chance will be a fine thing. The fact is that this is a logical part of the move from a selective secondary system to a


comprehensive secondary system. I submit that it always has been an anomaly that there should be subsidies out of public funds to what basically are independent schools. But that becomes all the more anomalous if such a subsidy is continued indefinitely after the Government and this House have decided on a national policy of moving towards the comprehensive system. That does not reduce standards. The hon. Gentleman knows or ought to know that up and down the country there are thousands of boys and girls getting better opportunities and reaching higher standards because we have moved along the road towards a comprehensive system.
As for the financial implications, there are both savings to public expenditure and costs to public expenditure. There will be a saving of the money spent on the grant. There will be costs involved in the sense that local authorities will need in some cases to provide places at the ratepayers' expense which at the moment they get by a different route. There will be a number of items on both sides of the balance sheet, difficult to assess in detail. All the studies that we have made suggest that there will be a very small net balance— either a net cost or a net saving— one way or the other.

Mr. Marks: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Government supporters welcome his speedy implementation of the programme on which we all fought and won the General Election? Will he continue to stress that direct grant schools still have a choice— that they do not have to go independent— and will he remind the Chancellor of the Exchequer that there are parts of the Labour Party Manifesto referring to the charitable status and tax relief of the independent schools?

Mr. Prentice: On my hon. Friend's latter point, yes, we have this in mind. My hon. Friend will not expect me to enlarge on that today. Certainly it is our intention that this clear choice should be presented to the schools. We hope that each school will be able to make a decision in principle by the end of the summer and choose whether to go into the maintained system, which is the route that we would prefer for as many of them as possible, or whether to go fully independent, in which case the grant will be phased out

over a number of years in the way that I have described.

Sir G. Sinclair: Will the Secretary of State accept that the Opposition believe that this will be a great cutting down of educational opportunities for many bright boys and girls and for many families of slender means throughout the country? Will he accept also that this will bring great anxiety to parents, great dislocation in the schools, and very great dislocation to local authorities which may have to face another reorganisation without any money to spend on it?

Mr. Prentice: When speaking of standards, the hon. Gentleman makes the same kind of assumption as has been made over many years in the changeover from a selective to a comprehensive system. The fears to which he refers have proved to be unfounded over the years. During the 10 years or so in which this country has been moving from a selective system to what is now 60 per cent. comprehensive in England and 85 per cent. comprehensive in Wales, academic standards have been rising. I see that as part of the process leading on to higher standards and greater opportunities for more children, and not fewer.
As for the hon. Gentleman's reference to the dislocation of local education authorities, I think that many of them will welcome the opportunity because they will rightly regard the continued existence of this sector as meaning that their plans to go comprehensive cannot be fully realised unless the process is complete.

Mr. Christopher Price: Does my right hon. Friend accept that his announcement will be welcome not only to all Government supporters but to many Conservative chairmen of local education authorities—

Mr. Cormack: Rubbish.

Mr. Price: —who have been trying to go comprehensive for some time, and who put the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) in his place when he tried to lead them into revolt a few weeks ago?
Since there will be complications here, will my right hon. Friend consider issuing model schemes to local education authorities so that the experience of those direct


grant schools— especially those Catholic schools— which have already made plans to go comprehensive may be available to all local education authorities in the attempt to integrate direct grant schools with the comprehensive system?

Mr. Prentice: My hon. Friend was right to make his first point. The ticking-off which the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) is reported to have had from leaders of Conservative groups in education throughout the country was no surprise to those of us who realise that among those Conservatives who understand education there are some who are becoming increasingly convinced of the need for comprehensive reorganization, and many have been getting on with it.
I shall consider the second point made by my hon. Friend. What I have in mind is that within a few weeks, following discussions with local education authorities and the schools themselves, I shall issue to schools and authorities more details of the way in which this transaction can be effected.

Mr. Freud: We on the Liberal bench accept the implementation of the Labour Party's manifesto as it relates to direct grant schools, and we welcome the promised safeguards for existing pupils.

Mr. Cormack: Resign.

Mr. Freud: I wonder whether the Secretary of State will answer three questions. First, will he give some guarantee about the continued academic excellence of those direct grant schools which go comprehensive? Secondly, will he ensure that local education authorities will have sufficient funds to take over the direct grant schools? Finally, when he says that his aim will be to help schools reach a decision in principle, will he reconsider his dateline, because many schools will want to think carefully about going independent?

Mr. Prentice: On the first point, I see no reason to assume any decline in the standard of academic excellence in any of these schools as a result of this decision — no reason at all. On the second point, we shall be discussing with local education authorities within the next few weeks the details of the processes by which they will be encouraged and helped to absorb

these schools and fit them in with their local plans. We shall be discussing the financial aspects, among other things.
On the question of the dateline, I see no reason why each school should not decide in principle by the end of this summer which route it wants to take. There may be a need for a further period for fitting in with local plans. That will depend partly on the pace of local authorities on going comprehensive, because we want these schools to come into the local authority system wherever appropriate as part of a comprehensive system. There may be some delay in the date on which they become integrated because of the pace at which the local authority concerned is making its own plans.

Mr. McNamara: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Government Members will welcome his statement, but that for a number of direct grant schools there is a particular problem because of the nature of their finances and the way in which they are associated with religious societies? Can he assure the House that in his negotiations on this matter of comprehensive schools he will bear that point very much in mind and treat the schools generously because of the time, dedication and money spent by many religious societies in giving education to many who would not otherwise have had it?

Mr. Prentice: Those points will be taken into account. Many of the direct grant schools, particularly those associated with religious foundations, the majority of which I hope will come into the maintained system, have a certain amount of accumulated debt. The hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) said it amounted to £3 million, but the estimate that I have had is £2½million. This would need to be serviced, and it would be one element to be taken into account in the pluses and minuses of the financial balance to which I referred earlier.

Mr. van Straubenzee: Does the right hon. Gentleman understand that one of the results of his announcement this afternoon will be that he will have ranged against him the full gamut of education opinion represented on these benches, including those who, against some hostility, have stood up for existing and future comprehensive schools, both on the ground of standards and because he has


no additional finance available for increasing these standards?
As there has been some reference to what was a private meeting, and a report of a private meeting, at which certain things are alleged to have been said to my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas), will the right hon. Gentleman take it from one who was at that meeting that there was no criticism at all from Labour and Conservative Members present of my hon. Friend's stance on comprehensive schools?

Mr. Prentice: I am sorry to hear that, because the meeting was obviously less enlightened than I was given to understand.

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Mr. Prentice: I shall not withdraw
.
Be that as it may, there are many within the Conservative Party, among whom I should have included the hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee), who have shown a sympathetic and constructive attitude towards comprehensive reorganisation but they seem to fail to realise that as long as this selective system exists side by side with the maintained comprehensive system the latter cannot be fully comprehensive. It is essential to the completion of a comprehensive system that the direct grant system as we know it should be phased out.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Will the right hon. Gentleman withdraw what has been shown to be a completely inaccurate account of the private meeting to which he referred?

Mr. Prentice: I was giving the Conservative Party representatives there more credit than they apparently deserved. I understood that many of them were saying that in their localities they were working at their own comprehensive schemes and believed in them. If that is not so I am sorry to hear it and would certainly withdraw what I said in the sense that I may have been misinformed, but I wish that the original accounts were true.
I have met a great number of Conservative members of local education committees throughout the country, including more than one chairman, who have said that when the right hon. Lady the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher)

was Secretary of State for Education and Science she turned down their plans for comprehensive education and have asked whether if they re-submitted them to me I would have another look at them because they were sure that the right hon. Lady was wrong in turning them down in the past.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: May I say that I accept that generous withdrawal.

GRANT-AIDED SCHOOLS (SCOTLAND)

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. William Ross): With permission, I should like to make a statement about my proposals for the future of the grant to the grant-aided secondary schools in Scotland.
I have decided that in 1975–76 the grant should be of the same amount as for 1974–75, subject, as has always been the case, to limitation to the actual amount of deficit in the case of any particular school. Phasing out will begin in 1976–77 and will extend over a period to be decided in the light of the circumstances revealed by discussion between my Department and the schools and the education authorities concerned.
The decision to phase grant out represents the implementation of longstanding Government policy. By delaying phasing out until the beginning of the 1976–77 school session we are providing ample opportunity for discussion with the managers of the schools and with the education authorities concerned on the most appropriate arrangements to be made for the future.
Discussions will be put in hand immediately. I expect that it will be necessary for separate meetings to take place with individual schools or groups of schools and that meetings with the schools will precede meetings with individual education authorities. My hope is that it will be found possible for the schools to be fully integrated in the public system of education as comprehensive schools but I have not made up my mind in advance on what the best arrangements might be.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Is not the right hon. Gentleman's statement simply death by strangulation of these schools? Does


he realise that he bears a heavy responsibility indeed for butchering a very important and respected sector of Scottish education. I repeat the pledge given by my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) that we shall reopen the list of grant-aided schools.
I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman two questions. First, is he aware that in Edinburgh alone about 500 parents have been forced to apply for local authority school places for their children? Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that if this number increases, as it will following his statement, local authorities, as they have said, will not be able to meet such continued demand? Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether the State system will be able to cope? Second, does he realise that in England and Wales 25 per cent. of parents pay full fees whereas in Scotland the figure is 98 per cent.? Those parents will bear the full brunt of the Government's vindictiveness. In these changed circumstances, brought about by the Government, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider introducing a fees remission scheme in Scotland for parents who have children at these schools?

Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman should know that it is not helpful to compare the system in Scotland with that in England. In Scotland 98 per cent. of pupils go to local education authority schools. The number of places available in the grant-aided schools for local education authority pupils is about 1,850, 1,000 of whom are in one school which is virtually a local authority school, Marr College in Troon. When the hon. Member speaks about the pressure on Edinburgh he should appreciate that the figure is about 495 firm applications—

Mr. Teddy Taylor: So far.

Mr. Ross: —and 195 are in respect of primary places. Judging from the statement made yesterday by the director of education in Edinburgh, there is not the alarming prospect which the hon. Gentleman suggests. The authority is well able to cope. When we bear in mind that the school population in Edinburgh is 87,500 we begin to get the thing into perspective. There is no justification for the kind of remarks the hon. Gentleman has made. The hon. Gentleman knows

that a fees remission scheme does not exist in Scotland. Whether anything can be done on these lines as the grant is tapered off will be subject to discussion.

Mr. David Steel: In supporting in principle what the Secretary of State has announced, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to recognise that there are many parents in Scotland whose children are at present in direct grant schools and wish to see an end to the dual system of education? Will he also recognise that in fairness he must produce a scheme for those who had already entered their children before this change in policy was announced and may suffer hardship as a result of the freezing of the grant?

Mr. Ross: I took note of that point in my answer to the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith). What we have to bear in mind when people talk about freedom of choice is that this freedom of choice is not available for 98 per cent. of Scottish children. When choice is limited by finance it becomes a matter of subsidised and selective privilege, which is quite outwith the whole traditions of Scottish education.

Mr. Robin F. Cook: Will my right hon. Friend accept that many members of Edinburgh Corporation will welcome his statement, particularly since they have been striving to establish a comprehensive system in the face of a substantial grammar school system which has been kept out with the maintained sector? Will he further accept that there may be building consequences for Edinburgh Corporation as a result of his decision, even if all the grant-aided schools were to enter the State sector, because they are not in the right place? Will he therefore give an assurance that he will look sympathetically at any applications for borrowing consent from local authorities which are faced with the necessity for further building in seeking to take full opportunity of his announcement?

Mr. Ross: My hon. Friend will realise that we are aware of all these matters. We are aware of the support we have in Edinburgh generally for what we are doing. All these relevant consequences will be taken into account.

Mr. Fairbairn: Will the Secretary of State appreciate that, contrary to what he


has said, in Perthshire there is a free choice to all children to go to a direct grant school? How does he accommodate his statement with Article 22 of the Declaration of Human Rights signed in Paris on 12th December 1948 by Clement Attlee on behalf of the people of this country—that every parent shall have the prime right to select the method of his or her child's education?

Mr. Buchan: Particularly those who live in castles.

Mr. Ross: Instead of looking at that declaration the hon. and learned Gentleman ought to see what was written in Scottish Education Acts.

Mrs. Bain: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that the sudden exodus from the House when he rose to make his statement was not a reflection upon him but merely reflected the general lack of interest in Scottish affairs which is so often shown in this House? [Interruption.] Is he aware that we on the Scottish National Party bench welcome the fact that the Secretary of State has adopted the idea of the Scottish National Party in phasing out grant-aided schools? [Interruption.] Will he now say when he will announce the timetable for the phasing-out period and thus reduce the uncertainty which so many parents feel?

Mr. Ross: My statement is designed to remove uncertainty as quickly as possible. May I add that I had great difficulty in hearing what the hon. Lady had to say and that that was probably related to a lack of interest in what she was saying.

Mr. Buchan: Was my right hon. Friend as surprised as I to learn that we had adopted SNP policy, since our policy was enunciated many years ago when we were in Opposition? Will my right hon. Friend take it from me that all concerned with Scottish education will be delighted by his statement? Will he confirm that what we are doing is restoring to Scotland the traditional form of education? Will he also confirm that the choice being referred to here is no choice for over 90 per cent. of the people but is one allowed only by a process of selection, a process involving money, or a process involving living in a castle— like the hon. and learned Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fairbairn)?

Mr. Ross: I agree with my hon. Friend about the traditional aims of Scottish education and the traditional claims of Scottish education. I have always found these to be consistent.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: How will it help advance Scottish education by imposing — as the Secretary of State is doing— a policy which will produce freedom of choice in education only for the rich? Why has he failed so miserably even to be able to give the same assurance as was given by his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science to the effect that protection would be afforded to those parents caught in the changeover? Does he not agree that it is crazy to take steps to drive children into the State sector at a time when he has imposed the most savage cuts on new school building, in 1975–76, that we have ever had in Scotland's history? Does that not show, again, that as a Secretary of State he is a complete washout?

Mr. Ross: I am sure that the House will be delighted to know that the Scottish education building programme is higher this year than it has even been.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: That is a lie.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Did I hear the hon. Member call the Secretary of State a liar?

Mr. Teddy Taylor: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I referred to the statement as a lie and I should not have done. It was simply because I had an answer to a Written Question a few days ago from the Secretary of State which gave the relevant figures. I unreservedly withdraw my remark, but I draw the Secretary of State's attention to the answer he gave me a week ago.

Mr. Ross: That is an unreserved withdrawal according to the hon. Member. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Scottish building programme—

Mr. Teddy Taylor: What about starts?

Mr. Ross: I am telling the hon. Gentleman what we are providing for educational building in Scotland in the current year. It is higher than it was last year or the year before. We have also this year to undertake a quarter of last year's building programme which was pushed forward by the Tory Government into this


year as part of their sleight of hand in cutting down on educational building. The hon. Gentleman should appreciate that what has been said is true and that 98 per cent. of Scottish schoolchildren do not have freedom of choice. There is no justification for subsidising this privileged sector.

HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT (FACILITIES)

Mr. Grylls: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration; namely,
 the failure of the Government to resolve the strike by Government employees in the Palace of Westminster resulting in the grave and increasing threat to the continuation of the work of Parliament and the ability of Members of Parliament to do their duties.
I gave you notice, Mr. Speaker, that I intended at the earliest opportunity to do so.
I submit that this is a specific matter, and I hope that all hon. Members will agree that this is the case. There is today a direct threat to our ability to do our jobs in this House. At the moment that threat is every bit as real as Hitler's bombs which destroyed this Chamber in 1941.
This is clearly an important matter. The right hon. Gentleman the Lord President of the Council in his statement earlier this afternoon admitted that Members' mail was being interfered with because the Post Office van was not coming into or going out of the Palace. This means that the matter must be dealt with very quickly indeed. Hon. Members are unable to deal with their constituents. They cannot receive letters from them, and they are unable to answer urgent queries if they cannot rely on getting their mail. Therefore, this matter is important in order to ensure that Members may discharge their duties.
I submit also, Mr. Speaker, that the matter is extremely urgent because the situation is deteriorating as we sit here. The Vote Office, as anyone who has been there knows, is in total chaos. Rubbish is not being collected. Even the lights are going out in many parts of the House of

Commons. No doubt, the lights will soon go out altogether.
The matter is also urgent because I understand that the milk float has been refused admission into the Palace of Westminster. In addition, I understand that it is only a question of time before the plumbing in the Palace of Westminster collapses altogether.
I hope, Mr. Speaker, mat I have shown that this is a specific matter, that it is important and urgent, and I therefore hope that you will allow this application so that the siege of Westminster can be raised as quickly as possible.

Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Member for having given me notice some hours ago of his intention to raise this matter. I have listened carefully to what he said. I also listened to the exchanges which took place earlier in the House.
It is not for me to comment on the facts which the hon. Member has alleged or stated. I have simply to decide whether I think it is appropriate to debate this matter under Standing Order No. 9. I do not think so. I am afraid that the hon. Member has not convinced me. I therefore reject his application.

QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE

Mr. Cormack: I wish to raise a matter of privilege, Mr. Speaker; namely, the action of certain public servants and those inciting them to frustrate the work of Parliament. I seek to move that this matter be committed to the Committee of Privileges.

Mr. Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Speaker: Is this a point of order?

Mr. Skinner: Yes, it is precisely to the point. With respect to the suggested breach of privilege of this House by people going on strike, before you consider referring this matter to the Committee of Privileges I hope that you will consider the fact that whenever there is a strike of industrial workers or any kind of workers, in some cases marginally but in other cases more extremely, they affect the work of this place, as indeed, they affect the work of people elsewhere. Therefore, one could argue quite properly that when the last Tory Government


engaged in conflict and confrontation with the postal workers in 1971, when those postal workers were out on strike for seven weeks— in which I encouraged them, incidentally— that was in itself no different in content or quality from this matter, and I am suggesting—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think the hon. Member is under a misapprehension. I shall consider this matter. If I decide that a motion should not have precedence, the hon. Member's remarks are not necessary. If I decide that it shall have precedence, a motion will be moved and the hon. Member will be able to make his speech then. I will consider the matter and rule tomorrow.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS

Ordered,

That the draft Royal Mint Trading Fund Order 1975 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments.— [Mr. Edward Short.]

SOCIAL SECURITY (AGE OF ENTITLEMENT TO RETIREMENT PENSION)

4.15 p.m.

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Social Security Act 1973 by reducing to sixty the age at which men become entitled to payment of retirement pension.
It is no joy for me to have to introduce again this Bill which seeks to promote basic equality between the sexes by reducing the pensionable age of men. I had hoped that the Government's new pension proposals, to which they refer as being the basis of a pension pattern which could be with us for 20 or 30 years, would include some provision for a more realistic pensionable age which would have made the introduction of this Bill completely unnecessary.
I appreciate that this Bill has no chance whatsoever of finding its way on to the statute book but I feel that it is important to try to persuade the Government, even at this late stage, to take some steps or to make some commitment, even if it is a long-term commitment, in this direction.
The Bill is not designed merely to reduce the pensionable age of men to 60 and to leave it at that. Apart from anything else, the cost of such a move would be prohibitive. The Secretary of State estimates that the cost would be about £1,440 million, although the actual figure is arguable. It depends on the take-up— the proportion of men retiring at 60— though I admit that it would undoubtedly involve a very large sum of money.
What I propose is merely that a common pensionable basic age should be established for both men and women at 60, coupled with a retirement range between 60 and 70, so that a man or a woman could choose to retire at any point within this range at the pension level appropriate to the age of retirement. This arrangement would combine the best of both worlds. On the one hand, it would cater for the men and women who want to retire at 60, 61 or 62.
Since I have been involved in this matter of equating pensionable ages and producing a more flexible system, I have received well over 2,000 letters on this issue, many from young people and from trade unions, but the great bulk, of course, from men and their wives in the mining, quarrying and steel industries who feel that at about 60 they have contributed enough to the national output and that they wish to retire.
Of course, 60 is not a particularly early age for retirement. In many other countries 60 is already a base retiring age, and in one or two countries it is as low as 55. This system would not only have advantage for those who wish to retire early. It would also provide an incentive for men and women who want to continue working. They would be able to retire at 66, 67, 68, 69 or 70 with a considerably higher pension. This could affect the whole of the take-up and retirement pattern, and, in fact, in the end would not only provide a situation in which the cost would be nil but could provide an additional source of manpower which would be highly desirable.
We who have considered the manpower situation realise that we are an ageing society. Thirty years ago there were six times as many people working as there were in retirement. Now I am told the ratio is 3½ to one. At some time very near to the year 2000 there will be as many people in retirement in this country


as those who are working. It is, therefore, desirable from that point of view to introduce a system in which there is an incentive for those who want to continue working as well as for those who wish to retire.
The obvious argument is the actuarial one. The present system is actuarial nonsense. A woman retires at 60 with an expectation of life of 20 years. A man retires at 65 with an expectation of life of 12 years. This means that a woman will receive at least £13,900 in pension, whereas a man will receive about £8,500. although a woman will have paid about £100 less into the scheme if she has been in it since 1948. This is actuarial nonsense.
The only attempt to justify this was in the Richard Crossman appendix. Many of my colleagues who are still in the actuarial world believe this to be nonsense. That appendix is meaningless to them.
There are great humanitarian arguments for my Bill. There are also the basic arguments for equality between the sexes. I am convinced that the Government are anxious to make some move towards flexibility and equality between the sexes. I only hope that the introduction of the Bill will play a small part in helping the Government to find a way. There is no time more apt, perhaps, than the present for this basic step towards equality. After all, this is International Women's Year. I have great sympathy with women all over the world who are staking their claims to equality. It must be remembered that sexual equality, like sex itself, is essentially a two-way process.

4.42 p.m.

Sir David Renton: I rise to—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposing the Bill?

Sir D. Renton: I am opposing the Bill, Mr. Speaker. I do so because I consider that it is ill-founded, unsupportable and quite unacceptable.
The hon. Member for Cannock (Mr. Roberts) said that he wished the matter to be given long-term consideration, but I suggest to the House that with every year that passes the case for the Bill is likely to be weakened, because men are taking more care of themselves, they are being better treated, they are living longer, and they are remaining more active.
Men and women have it in common that they are all as old as their hearts and their arteries. There are old young men and there are young old men. It is in the national interest that we should not raise false hopes of idleness in late middle age. The House should make it abundantly clear that we hone that men will go on living longer and living more and more active lives as they get older.
An hon. Member put forward such a weak case that I hope that the House will reject it. I do not think it is necessary for me to labour the matter further.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 13 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of Public Business):—

The House divided: Ayes 137, Noes 106.

Division No. 140.]
AYES
[4.23 p.m.


Allaun, Frank
Cunningham, Dr J. (Whlteh)
Grant, George (Morpeth)


Anderson, Donald
Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)


Beith, A. J.
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Hardy, Peter


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Dempsey, James
Hatton, Frank


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Hayman, Mrs Helene


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Henderson, Douglas


Bradley, Tom
Evans, loan (Aberdare)
Hooley, Frank


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Evans, John (Newton)
Huckfield, Les


Canavan, Dennis
Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Carmlchael, Neil
Faulds, Andrew
Hunter, Adam


Carter, Ray
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)


Cartwright, John
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Janner, Greville


Clemitson. Ivor
Flannery, Martin
Jeger, Mrs Lena


Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)


Cohen, Stanley
Fletcher Ted (Darlington)
Kaufman, Gerald


Colquhoun, Mrs Maureen
Forrester, John
Kelley, Richard


Conlan, Bernard
Freud, Clement
Kilfedder, James


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Kinnock, Nell


Cronin, John
George, Bruce
Lamble, David


Cryer, Bob
Graham, Ted
Lamond, James




Lee, John
Radice, Giles
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)


Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)
Reid, George
Tierney, Sydney


Lipton, Marcus
Richardson, Miss Jo
Torney, Tom


Litterick, Tom
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Urwin, T. W.


Loyden, Eddie
Roderick, Caerwyn
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


McCartney, Hugh
Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


McNamara, Kevin
Rooker, J. W.
Ward, Michael


Madden, Max
Roper, John
Watkins, David


Magee. Bryan
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Watt, Hamish


Mahon, Simon
Sandelson, Neville
Weetch, Ken


Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Sedgemore, Brian
Weitzman, David


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Selby, Harry
Welsh, Andrew


Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)
Silverman, Julius
Whitehead, Phillip


Newens, Stanley
Skinner, Dennis
Whitlock, William


Noble, Mike
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)
Wigley, Dafydd


Oakes, Gordon
Snape, Peter
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


O'Halloran, Michael
Spriggs, Leslie
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Stallard, A. W.
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Palmer, Arthur
Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Pardoe, John
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Park, George
Stott, Roger
Young, David (Bolton E)


Pavitt, Laurie
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley



Pendry, Tom
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Penhaligon, David
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)
Mr. Michael English and


Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Thompson. George
 Mrs. Ann Taylor.




NOES


Alison, Michael
Goodhart, Philip
Nelson, Anthony


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Goodhew, Victor
Onslow, Cranley


Arnold, Tom
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Page, John (Harrow West)


Bell, Ronald
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)


Bitten, John
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Peyton, Rt Hon John


Biggs-Davison, John
Harvle Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Blaker, Peter
Havers, Sir Michael
Raison, Timothy


Brittan, Leon
Hayhoe, Barney
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)


Brotherton, Michael
Howe, Rt Hn Sir Geoffrey
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Burden, F. A.
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Carlisle, Mark
James, David
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Channon, Paul
Jessel, Toby
Rost, Petar (SE Derbyshire)


Churchill, W. S.
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Sainsbury, Tim


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Jopling, Michael
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Clark, William (Croydon S)
Kershaw, Anthony
Shersby, Michael


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Silvester, Fred


Cope, John
Knight, Mrs Jill
Speed, Keith


Costain, A. P.
Lane, David
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutstord)
Lawrence, Ivan
Sproat, lain


Durant, Tony
Le Marchant, Spencer
Stanbrook, Ivor


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Loveridge, John
Stanley, John


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Stradling Thomas, J.


Elliott, Sir William
Macfariane, Nell
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Fairbairn, Nicholas
MacGregor, John
Townsend, Cyril D.


Fairgrieve, Russell
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Wall, Patrick


Farr, John
Mates, Michael
Walters, Dennis


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Mather, Carol
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Mawby, Ray
Wiggin, Jerry


Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Mayhew, Patrick
Winterton, Nicholas


Fookes, Miss Janet
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Fox, Marcus
Monro, Hector
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
Montgomery, Fergus
Younger, Hon George


Fry, Peter
Moore, John (Croydon C)



Gardiner, George (Reigate)
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral
Mr. Percy Grieve and


Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
 Mr. Patrick Cormack.


Glyn, Dr Alan
Neave, Airey

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Gwilym Roberts, Mrs. Joyce Butler, Mrs. Maureen Colquhoun, Mrs. Lena Jeger, Mrs. Millie Miller, Miss Jo Richardson, Mrs. Ann Taylor, and Mrs. Audrey Wise.

SOCIAL SECURITY (AGE OF ENTITLEMENT TO RETIREMENT PENSION)

Mr. Gwilym Roberts accordingly presented a Bill to amend the Social Security Act 1973 by reducing to sixty the age at which men become entitled to payment of retirement pension; and the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 11th July and to be printed. [Bill 105.]

EEC MEMBERSHIP (REFERENDUM)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Pendry.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): Before we embark on the Adjournment debate, I have a statement to read from Mr. Speaker stating that it may help the House if I remind hon. Members of the ruling on 3rd February when devolution was similarly discussed on an Adjournment motion.
Standing Order No. 16 gives Mr. Speaker discretion in an Adjournment debate to disregard to some extent the practice which prohibits reference to matters requiring legislative remedy if he feels that the enforcement of the rule would unduly restrict discussion.
As Mr. Speaker reminded the House, his predecessors and he himself have considered the prohibition to apply principally to half-hour Adojurnment debates. It would scarcely be possible to exclude from discussion the fact that legislation on the subject of our debate today will ultimately be necessary to implement the proposals. Mr. Speaker therefore states that the occupant of the Chair will intervene only if an hon. Member makes direct reference to the detailed provisions of any future Bill, but it will be in order to discuss alternative methods of conducting the referendum and the manner in which any question is to be put. Mr. Speaker thinks that this arrangement worked to the general satisfaction of the House on the previous occasion and hopes that the House will agree that it is the only sensible course to obtain today.

4.35 p.m.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Edward Short): Whatever view we may take on Britain's membership of the European Community, I hope that we would all agree that this is much the most important issue that has faced this country for many years. Whether we decide to stay in or to come out, the effects on our economy, on our political and parliamentary systems, on our influence in the world and, indeed, perhaps eventually on our whole way of

life will be profound not just for ourselves, but for future generations.
How should a decision of this importance have been taken? The right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) had it right when he said that such a decision should be taken only with the full-hearted consent of Parliament and the British people. In our system we accept decisions with which we do not agree, but only if we are satisfied that they have been arived at fairly and democratically.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: In Parliament.

Mr. Short: Unfortunately, the last Government's handling of the European issue did not match their previous promises. They had no mandate to take us in, merely to negotiate— "nothing more, nothing less ". The result is that the consent of the British people has not, in fact, been secured. The issue continues to divide the country. The decision to go in has not yet been accepted.
That is the essence of the case for having a referendum. Only by means of a referendum can we find out whether the British people do or do not consent to our continued membership. A General Election could not give us this answer, because this is an issue within the parties, not between them.
How, for example, would a Conservative supporter opposed to our membership have recorded his view in the last two elections? [An HON. MEMBER: "Vote Labour."] That is quite right. One former Conservative recorded his view most appropriately, but a number of hon. Gentlemen opposite who took his view did not, I believe, follow his example.
The country has not yet had an opportunity to say whether we wish to be in or out. For an issue of this unique magnitude, that is simply not good enough.
I understand and respect the view of those devoted to this House and to the sovereignty of Parliament who argue that a referendum is alien to the principles and practices of parliamentary democracy. I respect their view, but I do not agree with it. I will tell the House why.
This referendum is wholly consistent with parliamentary sovereignty. The


Government will be bound by its result, but Parliament, of course, cannot be bound by it. Although one would not expect hon. Members to go against the wishes of the people, they will remain free to do so.
One of the characteristics of this Parliament is that it can never divest itself of its sovereignty. The referendum itself cannot be held without parliamentary approval of the necessary legislation. Nor, if the decision is to come out of the Community, could that decision be made effective without further legislation. I do not, therefore, accept that the sovereignty of Parliament is affected in any way by the referendum. Some argue that decisions on national issues should be taken wholly and exclusively by Members of the two Houses of Parliament. In general, we would all agree with that. But Governments are elected on their whole programme and it would be neither appropriate nor practicable to have referenda on individual parts of the package. Moreover, if Parliament's decisions are found to be wrong, a subsequent Parliament can reverse them, as we have been doing since February last year. But that surely does not apply to this matter.
Our membership of the European Community is a unique issue because it profoundly affects our relationships with other countries as well as our whole standing and status in the world. It is unique because in time it could become almost irreversible, not for legal reasons but because, as we are already finding, the longer we stay in the harder it will be to come out, and the harder it will be to find any adequate design for living outside.
In preparing the White Paper we have taken note of the views of those who have been consulted informally. I have had discussions with representatives of all the parties represented in the House, with Members representing a variety of different points of view, with the three major parties outside Parliament and with representatives of what are likely to be the two main campaigning groups. Having discussed the referendum with so many people of differing points of view, it is not surprising to me that the White Paper is not likely to satisfy everyone. But some of the proposals are still tentative.

As the Prime Minister has said, it is a White Paper with very green edges.
This debate is not about renegotiation, but, of course, the progress of renegotiation, as well as the passage of the Bill, will determine the timing of the referendum. The Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary are today in Dublin on what I hope will be the final stage of renegotiation. Our aim is to introduce the Referendum Bill before the Easter Recess with a view to obtaining the Royal Assent by the third week in May. This would enable the referendum to be held in the second half of June.
The basic approach of the Government in making their proposals has been to stick as closely as possible to existing electoral machinery, evolved and tested over many years. To do so offers the best guarantee of efficiency, fairness and public acceptability. Familiarity and confidence in efficiency and fairness are more likely to ensure a good turnout and, what is tremendously important, to secure the widest acceptance of the result by the British people. We have, therefore, been prepared to depart from normal electoral practice only where there is good reason for doing so.
I turn now to the proposals in detail.

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: In view of the last remark made by the Lord President and as we, as a Parliament, will have to decide this issue, will he tell us why, in using the normal electoral machinery, we should not know precisely, each and every one of us, what are our constituents' views on this matter?

Mr. Short: The hon. Gentleman interrupted me after I had said, "I turn now to the proposals in detail." I shall deal with that point when I come to it, if the hon. Gentleman will allow me.
It has been suggested that the verdict of the electorate can hardly be regarded as decisive if there is a very low turnout or if those who do vote in favour of one course or the other do so by only a very narrow margin. There have been suggestions that we should stipulate a minimum poll or a minimum majority for the result to be decisive. Some of the groups I have consulted have been worried by the fact that the result of the poll could, I suppose, in the extreme case, be decided by one vote in many millions. But this


would be the case if there were a requirement for a minimum majority.
If there were a minimum majority, there would also be the problem that a clear majority which was less than the minimum would not decide the issue. I am quite sure that the British electorate would find that extremely hard to accept. Also, the idea of stipulating a minimum poll is just as difficult, and could lead to widespread abstention. If we are to have a referendum, I hope that all would agree that we want a high poll, particularly as it is in the national interest to secure the greatest possible degree of acceptance of the result.

Mr. Keith Speed: In view of the right hon. Gentleman's last statement, and accepting the referendum as important, may I ask why, therefore, cannot British citizens working in Europe and people on holiday have the vote?

Mr. Short: I have said that I shall be discussing all the details. If hon. Members will contain themselves, perhaps at the end of my speech, if I have not covered specific points, they will then ask me about them.
The question on the ballot paper has attracted a good deal of attention. The Government are not firmly committed to the proposal in the White Paper, but we believe that the question should be as clear and simple as possible and should require a "Yes" or "No" answer. There have been suggestions that even with the simplest possible question the precise wording on the ballot paper may have an effect on the way people vote. But there is no reliable evidence to support that view. In responding to any opinion poll, people may reply differently to the same question raised in a different way, but there is a world of difference between how people respond to an unexpected question from a pollster stopping them in the street or knocking at the door and how they respond to a question the text of which they have known about and been able to think about for several weeks, on a subject which has been a matter of controversy for some years.

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: I accept that there is some truth in what my right hon. Friend is saying— [HON.

MEMBERS: "Oh."]—some truth. However, is there not considerable statistical evidence in terms of the recent poll on divorce in Italy, where there was a very long and nationwide campaign, that the result was eventually confused by the fact that people did not understand what the "Yes" or "No" stood for in the question and answer? In this case, it seems to me that the simple answer— without wishing to make a point that is too statistical— is that the two simple, understandable words here about which there are no doubts at all are the words "in" and out ".

Mr. Short: I am glad that my hon. Friend has seen one gleam of truth in what I am saying. However, I am coming to the question of the terminology. There is a world of difference between the pollster putting that kind of question and the question put in a referendum at the end of a long campaign with a great deal of national publicity.
However, the wording will not be decided lightly. The British are a mature electorate and would respond very unfavourably to any suspicion that they were being pushed by the wording of the question into giving the answer that the Government wanted. There are problems of terminology in drafting the question. The word "we" is open to misinterpretation—

Mr. Cormack: Like the French.

Mr. Short: —but it does personalise the issue. The words "Great Britain" leave out Northern Ireland. "United Kingdom" is, of course, the correct term, but it may be an unfamiliar term to some voters. Or again, "Common Market" is a familiar term; "EEC" is less so. But neither is correct. There seems little likelihood of "European Community" being misunderstood. Again, should the word be "think" or "shall ", or should the word be "want" or "agree "? The latter word, "agree ", would certainly appear to be loaded. Finally, and perhaps most difficult of all, should the words be "stay in" "be in "? "Stay in" is consistent with the wording of the Labour Party's October Manifesto and it represents the present state of affairs.—[Interruption.] We try to carry out our promises. "Be in" is superficially more neutral but gives the misleading impression that we have a choice whether to join


the Community or not. The issue is whether we stay in or come out.
There is also the problem whether or not the question should be preceded by a preamble, as we have suggested. The Government have promised to consult people in the light of the renegotiated terms of membership. Renegotiation has led or will lead to the referendum. It seems right to us that people should be reminded of this by the preamble, but there is no attempt to influence by reference to a Government recommendation. It would be possible to make the preamble longer by adding, for example, "The United Kingdom has been a member of the European Community since January 1973 ". But clearly we want to avoid overburdening the ballot paper, which must be as simple as possible. However, some reference to the renegotiated terms seems to us to be appropriate.
I turn now to—

Mr. David Steel: Before the Leader of the House leaves the question of renegotiation — he passed over that very quickly earlier — as he says, the word is used on the proposed ballot paper. However, how will it be explained to the public that renegotiation does not stop at any magic point after Dublin and that the Government themselves have indicated that they wish further to discuss the question of the steel terms?

Mr. Short: The Government embarked on a programme of points to be renegotiated. The Prime Minister will be reporting to Parliament on the result of the renegotiation.
I turn now to the register. There have been proposals that the normal parliamentary election register should be extended in a number of ways beyond the inclusion of peers as proposed in the White Paper. For example, it has been proposed that Service voters who are not on the current register should be included. Of course, they have a chance to register. It has also been proposed that those working in other countries should have a postal vote if they apply for it. I recognise the arguments—

Mr. Speed: Mr. Speed rose—

Mr. Short: I shall give way in a moment.
I recognise the arguments. No firm decisions have yet been taken on such proposals. There are issues of principle, which apply equally to General Elections, and there are many practical difficulties in trying to establish at short notice some form of supplementary register. Sticking to the current parliamentary register and to our normal electoral practice would make it possible to hold the referendum before the summer holidays. There is a case for proceeding quickly and getting the matter settled one way or the other.
There is a case for sticking as closely as possible to existing electoral procedures. That would mean no postal votes for holidaymakers. As it is our intention to hold the referendum in June, very few people will be on holiday.

Mr. Ian Gow: Mr. Ian Gow (Eastbourne) rose—

Mr. Short: To allow postal voting would certainly have implications in General Elections. Our normal practice when we make such changes is to refer them to Mr. Speaker's Conference for study in depth.

Mr. Mark Carlisle: Am I not right in saying that when the issue of votes for those on holiday has been considered in the past, the only argument which has been put against it is that the period between the calling of a General Election and the date by which a postal vote has to be submitted is too short to allow them to have a vote? Presumably that argument cannot apply when we shall know many weeks in advance the date on which the referendum will take place? What is the argument against allowing those on holiday to vote?

Mr. Short: I hope that the House will look at this matter dispassionately. I have said that we have not taken a decision. We are willing to listen to the views of hon. Members. It does not help to shout about it. Let us discuss the matter objectively and sensibly. In reply to the hon. and learned Gentleman, we shall have to proceed on an informal basis until the Bill receives Royal Assent. That is one of the problems. The period would be relatively short—namely, about three weeks. We are prepared to consider the matter.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: Since the capital transfer tax has been proceeding on an informal basis since 26th March last year and has not yet received Royal Assent, does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that the arrangements for the referendum could proceed in the same manner?

Mr. Short: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is getting obsessive about the capital transfer tax.

Mr. John Lee: As speed is of the essence, and bearing in mind that the Government put forward the peculiar proposal that peers may be included in the electoral roll for the purposes of the referendum, will my right hon. Friend say what the Government propose to do if the referendum legislation is obstructed in another place?

Mr. Short: I never bid the Devil, "Good morning ". Let us deal with such difficulties when we reach them.
We hope to help electors by arranging for poll cards to be produced in time. That will help the electors. There are many electors who imagine that they cannot vote unless they have a poll card. The advice of hon. Members will he welcome on possible solutions to the problems of independent scrutiny particularly at the count. There are a number of possibilities and I should like to know the views of hon. Members.
I turn now to the question of how the votes should be counted and how the results should be declared. The choice broadly is between different methods of counting locally by constituencies, counties or regions, with local or central announcement of the results, and, on the other hand, a central count. As I have already said, we want the referendum to unite the country behind a decision one way or the other. We want that decision to be reached democratically. We do not want it to be used for their own purposes by those who wish to divide the United Kingdom. There are some who wish to do that and who look forward to using the referendum for that purpose.

Mr. Douglas Henderson: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way and for coming

clean on the real reason for the extraordinary decision being made to insist upon a central count. I take it as a great compliment to my hon. Friends and myself that the right hon. Gentleman has found it necessary to proceed in that way. Bearing in mind his desire that familiar and tested electoral procedures should be followed, it will seem strange to people in Scotland, Wales and elsewhere that the votes will have to be trundled down to London. They will find it strange that there will not be adequate facilities for scrutineers to come from the areas that I have mentioned to ensure that the votes are correctly counted and to ask for a recount should there be a necessity for that course to be taken. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that it would reassure people, and avoid the feeling that there might be a fiddling of the votes, if instead of being brought to London to be counted the votes were counted in the areas where the voting takes place?

Mr. Short: I am sure that if the hon. Gentleman catches your eye, Mr. Speaker, he will be able to put forward his point of view.
Confidentiality of results at local counts could never be guaranteed. It is a national poll and a national issue. The purpose of the referendum is to find out what the people of the United Kingdom think and not what any area or region thinks. The constituency is the whole of the United Kingdom. The Government propose that the ballot boxes shall be brought to London and the votes counted centrally. That would be a major task, but by no means impossible. It would take five days, including polling day, to count the votes. Details of the organisation are now being urgently investigated by a senior official who has been appointed to take responsibility for the arrangements until a national returning officer can be appointed.
I cannot yet say where it is proposed to hold the count, but the range of centres available in London for an operation of this size and duration is limited. Of course, Earls Court would be the natural choice because London is at the centre of our national communications. The date of the referendum—

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: The right hon. Gentleman observed a


short while ago that the confidentiality of local results could not be guaranteed. Undoubtedly that is the case. Undoubtedly there will be a great deal of information, more or less accurate, of how the vote has gone in different localities. Is that not an argument which carries strongly in the opposite direction to the right hon. Gentleman's present tendency, since, if that is to be so, it would be far better if the truth were properly known and ascertained in the right way?

Mr. Short: That is a point of view. We want to know what the United Kingdom thinks as a whole. We are not concerned solely with Northern Ireland or Scotland or solely with anywhere else. The issue is whether the United Kingdom wishes to stay in or to come out.

Mr. Edward Gardner: I have a short point to put to the right hon. Gentleman which I hope the House will consider important. How on earth— or for that matter anywhere else— are the Government to make the administrative arrangements that will be able to cope with an enlarged register bringing in possibly 25 million to 30 million votes and to count those votes within five days?

Mr. Short: We have carried out a feasibility study into this question and we believe that it can be done in five days. The date of the referendum must depend upon the progress of renegotiation. Polling day is traditionally on a Thursday in General Elections, and all but a handful of results are available in less than 24 hours. If the count is to take five days, Thursday would present difficulties, but there would be an advantage in using the traditional polling day, and the earliest practicable day would probably be 19th June. If, on the other hand, a five-day operation is inevitable, the need to secure the speediest possible result indicates a poll earlier in the week than Thursday. A Sunday poll would be unacceptable to a great many people and a Monday would therefore obviously be the best. However, I would welcome views on this matter. The earliest practicable Monday woul probably be 23rd June. Wakes weeks begin in the second half of June, and on 23rd June I believe only two towns will be on holiday. On 30th June,

however, they would be joined by a dozen other Lancashire towns.
I turn now to the question of information. There is a good deal of evidence that voters need a great deal more information about the Market. The media and the campaigning organisations can be expected to provide plenty of general information. The Government's job is to supply objective information on the EEC generally and on the renegotiated terms and on the Government's recommendations. We feel that the special nature of the referendum justifies the delivery to every household of a popular version of the White Paper on the renegotiated terms and on the Government's recommendation. I am glad to tell the House that the Post Office and the Post Office workers are prepared to take on this substantial task—[Interruption.] I would have thought that the Opposition would have been pleased about that.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: My right hon. Friend said that the Government would provide objective information and a White Paper, but would it not be more confusing if, in the words of the White Paper, they answered requests
 for…interpretation of the renegotiated terms and the like "?
If they did that, who could tell what was interpretation and what was objective fact?

Mr. Short: Government Departments will be asked for information. Government Departments are telephoned every day for all kinds of information, and I am sure that there would be a flood of information about this.
Although procedures for the conduct of the referendum will resemble as closely as possible those for a General Election, the Government will have to ensure that the voters understand the mechanics of the operation and have a proper advance notice of the question on the ballot paper.
We have also considered the campaigns likely to be mounted by the two umbrella organisations, and we have come to the view that, in the interests of a fair contest, there is something to be said for a modest degree of support for the two organisations— particularly as there is likely to be disparity in the funds available to them. A lot will depend on how


far the bodies on each side coalesce into a reasonably united umbrella grouping. The Government could not offer to fund every separate body that proposes to campaign. Any money made available would, of course, have to be accounted for by the organisations after polling day.
However, whatever is decided on a direct cash subvention, the Government's major contribution is likely to be paying for the production and distribution, at the same time as the Government's own documents—which I have described—of the brief statement of both sides of the case which the White Paper describes as similiar to an election address.
There are precedents in other countries for the production of a document of this kind. I hope that hon. Members will agree that it is a reasonable proposal. It will allow each side to have a statement of its case sent to every household in the country.

Mr. Cormack: If the renegotiated terms are achieved in Dublin today, and if the Prime Minister, as he has indicated, commends these to the country, will he sign the election address?

Mr. Short: This will be a statement of the case written by the umbrella organisation concerned. It will prepare its own part of the case. Discussions are proceeding with the two campaigning bodies on this matter.
It will be very difficult, and probably impossible to legislate to control expenditure as happens in the case of a General Election, especially as such control could only relate to the very short period between the Royal Assent and the referendum. We take the view that it is probably better to ensure that there are all the normal electoral safeguards against undue pressure on individuals than to try to construct a restrictive framework of control on total expenditure.
The voters' main source of information will be television— even more so than at an election because there are no candidates. Provided television presentation is balanced it would take a very great deal to upset the balance of the campaign as a whole. I am confident that the BBC and IBA will ensure the correct balance both in their current

affairs programmes and in the referendum broadcasts.

Mr. Churchill: On the question of television time and on the funding of the campaigns on each side of the case, will the Leader of the House and his colleagues bear in mind what appears likely at the moment, that the three major national democratic parties in this country — the Labour Party, the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party— will be on one side on this issue and the National Front and the Communist Party will be on the other side? Will he beware giving undue publicity to extremists of these parties?

Mr. Short: I do not accept that proposition at all.
I turn now to the Bill itself. It will be a relatively simple measure, which will authorise the holding of the referendum and will specify the wording of the ballot paper. It will provide for the appointment of someone to be responsible for the count and the certification of the result. It will make appropriate financial provisions and include power to adapt existing electoral machinery by order, and if the proposal is generally acceptable it will provide for assistance to the two campaigning bodies. A draft of the order setting out the electoral provisions will be available when the Bill is debated. The order will be made as soon as possible after Royal Assent. It will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure and we believe it will be for the advantage of the House for a draft of the order to be available at the same time as the debate on Second Reading.
This Government came to power on a pledge that within 12 months of the election the people of Britain would be given the final say on whether to accept the terms that were in process of renegotiation or to reject them and come out. That promise we shall now fulfil. In doing so we shall be fulfilling also, two years late, the promise made by the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath). For at last the British people will have their chance to say whether or not they give their full-hearted consent to our membership of the EEC.

5.9 p.m.

Mrs. Margaret Thatcher: From the way in which the Leader of the


House began his speech, one would have thought that a referendum had been an inherent part of the Labour Party's doctrine for a very long time. The right hon. Gentleman knows full well that that is not true. In July 1971 the present Prime Minister, then Leader of the Opposition, said from this Dispatch Box, when the question was being discussed at Question Time:
I oppose a referendum, and I agree— I have always done so, as he has. The idea of an advisory referendum was not then put forward, but I still agree with the right hon. Gentleman on this question. But since he said, rightly, that the decision must be taken by Members of Parliament, each of them taking responsibility for his decision in the matter, will he look again at the White Paper which he published yesterday."— [Official Report, 8th July 1971; Vol. 820, c. 1515.]
It is clear from that that the present Prime Minister was wholly against referenda and thought that the decision should be made by Members of Parliament. I was a little concerned that in the closing parts of his speech the Lord President said that the British people must have the final say. I cannot quote his exact words, but I think that that was the expression he used. That is inconsistent with his earlier remark that the referendum did not derogate from parliamentary sovereignty. If it does not derogate from parliamentary sovereignty, it is Parliament which has the final say. He said that his pledge was that the British people should have the final say. That shows our constitutional difficulty in discussing this subject and in taking decisions before we have thought about them properly and considered all the consequences
The Lord President made great play on the question of the full-hearted consent of the people. Yesterday, when I was having the compulsory cold collation which we have to have these days, I was interested to see this letter in the Evening Standard:
 How tired one gets of the well-worn clichç ' the full-hearted consent of the people '. What exactly is meant by this? Referenda for every important piece of legislation? If this was the case, we would have no Race Relations Act, immigration would have been stopped, abortions would still be illegal and hanging still be in force. All these laws were passed not only without this full-hearted consent nonsense, but, if the polls are to be believed, in the face of a determined 70 to 80 per cent. of the electors' wishes to the contrary.

I expect that that is what we shall move to if we have the first referendum without considering the consequences that every piece of legislation will require full-hearted consent, which normally means consent exercised through the House, consent which my right hon. Friends and I have been concerned to exercise through the House but which the Lord President is now saying is consent exercised through the new device of a referendum. That used not to be part of the Labour Party's doctrine.
This referendum, if it is held, will be the first in United Kingdom history to affect the whole of the United Kingdom, but the White Paper makes no attempt to consider this constitutional decision.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: Does the right hon. Lady think that the referendum on whether the Six Counties should remain part of the United Kingdom did or did not affect the rest of the United Kingdom?

Mrs. Thatcher: The referendum was not taken over the whole of the United Kingdom, as the hon. Gentleman knows.
The White Paper makes no attempt to consider the constitutional decision of a referendum. It does not discuss its long-term effect and it does not indicate the status of the referendum result at law. Indeed, the White Paper avoids all the fundamental arguments and treats the whole question as merely one of tactics and organisation— and to that I would add semantics.
The speech made by the Lord President shows how difficult it will be to frame a question which suits everyone and is regarded as fair by everyone, let alone how difficult will be the framing of the 1,000-word statements by umbrella groupings. That will be even worse.
Used by the Labour Government in the form proposed, the referendum is a tactical device to get over a split in their own party, and any constitutional consequences are, therefore, of only secondary importance in the Government's eyes.

Mr. Michael English: Is the right hon. Lady aware that the Labour Party picked up the idea of a referendum during the passage of the European Communities Bill from an amendment tabled by the hon. Member


who represents the faction in the Conservative Party that is anti-market?

Mrs. Thatcher: On that occasion the referendum was rejected. Speeches were made on the subject from both sides of the House, to which I shall refer. The hon. Gentleman's interruption does not alter the fact that the White Paper makes no attempt to discuss the constitutional position once we have had the first referendum, although members of the Government accept that once we have a first referendum things will be different and will never be the same again.
I quote from a letter which appeared in The Times of 11th April 1972 from the Home Secretary:
 It may be argued…that the EEC referendum would be a once-for-all operation. The device would never be used again. Who can possibly say that? Once the principle of the referendum has been introduced into British politics, it will not rest with any one party to put a convenient limit to its use. And most history shows, as Clem Attlee pointed out with terse force in 1945, that it is a splendid weapon for demagogues and dictators.
Those who resigned with the Home Secretary on the occasion when the Labour Party later adopted the referendum— I understand after two meetings of the Shadow Cabinet within the space of a fortnight— took a similar view.

Mr. Roderick MacFarquhar: I remind the right hon. Lady that the gentleman who proposed a referendum in 1945 was the then Leader of the Conservative Party and Prime Minister— Sir Winston Churchill.

Mrs. Thatcher: Indeed, yes. If I may go on with my own speech I shall come to that.
Referenda have been discussed before, in the House and elsewhere. There are some names that can be quoted in support of both sides of the argument. There will be even more names that can be quoted on both sides of the argument before we have finished the debate, if certain members of the Government vote in a way contrary to the way in which they resigned some time ago.
First, Dicey will be quoted on both sides of the argument, first by looking at the main edition of his book, which states that parliamentary sovereignty is supreme and, secondly, by looking at his views as a political activist who hated the party

system and thought that what he called the absolutism of a party possessed of parliamentary majority needed to be curbed. I confess that when I look at the Government benches I am inclined to agree with him that there are times when the absolutism of a majority party needs to be curbed, particularly in the period when curbs have been stopped after the reduction in powers of the House of Lords.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: Is the right hon. Lady aware that Dicey is a work on English constitutional law which is not acceptable in Scotland? Is she also aware that the Prime Minister promised the Lord Advocate consultation on the question of the constitution of Scotland?

Mrs. Thatcher: Do read him. Both the eighth and tenth editions are full of good stuff. The last one which he wrote was the eighth edition.

Mr. Michael Stewart: rose—

Mrs. Thatcher: I would prefer to get on, otherwise I shall take such a long time. I have only just started.

Mr. Michael Stewart: I only wished to say that I hope that the right hon. Lady will not pray Dicey in aid too much. If she reads another of the appendices to his great work, she will find that he argued that it was against the order of nature that women should elect Members of Parliament.

Mrs. Thatcher: It is interesting that in these days it is much easier for women to get on in the Conservative Party than in the Labour Party. Women who are politically interested therefore know which party to join to pursue their political activities. The reference to Dicey which I have made came in the introduction to the eighth edition, and it was used as an argument against a referendum. Dicey was on both sides, and will be prayed in aid by both sides.
Churchill proposed a referendum at a time when there had not been a General Election for a long period, when the normal constitutional procedures were in suspense. Previously, as Home Secretary — Home Secretaries seem to get into trouble on the referenda issue— Churchill resisted an amendment to have a referendum in 1911.
Churchill also can be prayed in aid on both sides— against the referendum when in Government, and for a referendum at the end of the wartime period. Therefore, one can pray in aid well-known parliamentarians or constitutional lawyers on both sides.
It is frequently the case that those who are against a change in the law put up the proposition of a referendum when they think that, by having one, they can defeat the change in the substantive law. That is the usual reason for such a suggestion. The answer given by the Government of the day is to consider all constitutional consequences. There have been a number of cases of that kind. There was a conference on the reform of the second Chamber which looked at the question of referenda and came to the following conclusion:
 The majority of the conference did not approve this plan on the ground, among others, that the use of the referendum, once introduced, could not be confined to cases for which it was in this instance proposed and that it might tend to lower the authority and dignity of Parliament.
Whoever tends to be against a Bill proposes a referendum. Normally the answer is, Let us consider its constitutional effects before agreeing to it "
The White Paper takes the view "Other democratic countries have had a referendum—why should not we? "That is to take far too simplistic a view of the referendum and to attempt to divorce one constitutional feature of a country from its whole context and refuse to look at the matter against a proper background.
If one is considering a referendum— I would he prepared to consider it, but not against this background— it would have to be considered against whether one should have a written constitution, under what circumstances one should have referenda, and how one would require to limit the power and curb the use of it by the Government of the day.

Mr. Lee: Rightly or wrongly— I would say wrongly— have we not already got a written constitution by virtue of our affiliation to the Common Market? It is full of written provisions which purport to apply to this country.

Mrs. Thatcher: The answer is "No." On occasion, those who have proposed a referendum naturally have subordinated whatever they might have thought of the

constitutional circumstances of a referendum to what they thought of the provision which it was meant to be against. We recognise that this may happen again. But before embarking on a referendum we, as a House, should consider its far-reaching consequences. We should attempt to do so under four heads. First, parliamentary sovereignty; secondly, collective responsibility; thirdly, representative Parliament; and, fourthly, the consequences for treaty obligations which have already been assumed.
Let me deal first with parliamentary sovereignty. There is no power under which the British constitution can come into rivalry with the legislative sovereignty of Parliament. That is the tenth edition of Dicey. To subject laws retrospectively to a popular vote suggests a serious breach of this principle. To subject laws prospectively before the final assent of the popular vote suggests we are using a different rule to validate laws. To have several referenda would create a new rule. We should be saying that some proposals require popular ratification and others do not. Without a written constitution one might ask: which proposals and what kind of measures?
The Government seek to avoid that question by claiming that the case is unique. That is unconvincing, and masks the fact that they see the matter purely in terms of political expediency and party need. To use the referendum device at all is to ask the question: to what category of measure should referenda apply? Presumably the answer would be: in cases of constitutional change. But it is hard to define such a change in the British tradition because so much depends on convention and precedent. A referendum may, however, become acceptable if given a proper constitutional foundation— that is to say, if the conditions under which it could be used were defined. But that would mean, like many other democratic countries, going as far as a written constitution or at least part of the way. The implications for parliamentary sovereignty are profound. But if our sense of constitutional rules and conventions is weakening, there may come a time when some such course should be considered.
Secondly, I turn to the principle of collective responsibility. The statement in


the annex to the White Paper makes it clear that the doctrine of collective responsibility will be suspended prior to the poll. I believe that it is suspended not on the terms of entry but on the whole principle of entry. That is the only consistent interpretation of what would happen. But the whole relationship of government with Parliament depends on that principle. No Government can be properly accountable to Parliament unless they acknowledge a collective responsibility with regard to main matters of policy. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House described this as the most important issue that has faced the country for many years. What he is saying is that the people must make a decision, Parliament must make a decision, but the Government are incapable of making a decision. On all major matters the essential task of government is decision. That does not mean absence of argument or absence of some differences. It means the capacity to reach a decision after argument and consideration, and sticking to it or resigning.
We now face the new system. If the Government cannot agree, gone is the discipline of resignation, gone is the principle of accountability to Parliament. The new doctrine is to pass the buck to the people. Let the people arbitrate is the view. Normally if people are to arbitrate, one would usually ask whether they consent to arbitrate in that way. That was the view taken by the right hon. Gentleman who is now the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and who wrote a letter to The Times on 27th March 1972 in the following terms:
 If we are to have a referendum, surely its first use must be to see whether the British people wish to introduce so important a departure from constitutional practice.
The Leader of the House said that the present referendum proposal was in his manifesto, but the Labour Government were returned to power on the basis of about 38 per cent. of votes cast or on the basis of about 28 per cent. of those eligible to vote. In fact there is no mandate for a referendum.

Mr. Edward Short: Will the right hon. Lady tell the House what her percentage was in the election?

Mrs. Thatcher: The right hon. Gentleman is not really attempting to understand the argument. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster would do very much better. It was that right hon. Gentleman I was quoting. There is no evidence that the vast majority of our people wish to have a referendum on this issue.
If we wish to make certain, the logical and reasonable thing to do is to ask, in the first question—it could be done within the framework of the local elections— "Do you wish to leave this question to Parliament to decide in the normal way? ", in the way in which every single one of the original six Common Market countries decided. Although many of those countries have provision for referenda in their constitutions, they did not use it.

The Minister of State, Privy Council Office (Mr. Gerald Fowler): I have been trying to follow with great care the right hon. Lady's argument about mandates. Will she accept that, if the present Government have no mandate for a referendum, the Conservative Government had no mandate to take us into the Common Market in the first place?

Mrs. Thatcher: The hon. Gentleman cannot be much of a believer in parliamentary sovereignty to have made that intervention.
If Parliament is still sovereign—

Mr. Spearing: No taxation without representation.

Mrs. Thatcher: We could not be considering taking the country out of the Community unless Parliament were still sovereign, as the hon. Gentleman knows. If he believes in parliamentary sovereignty, yes, we had a mandate for going into Europe, and he knows it.
What I am saying is that if one wishes to ask whether the people want to leave the decision to Parliament— and I believe that many of them would like to do so— the proper procedure would be to put that question to them and find out. Why does not the right hon. Gentleman provide for that question to be put first? It might avoid all the other problems of having a referendum, of getting the umbrella organisations to draft statements, and so on.

Mr. Philip Whitehead: I am extremely grateful to the right hon. Lady for giving way. Does she not accept that parliamentary sovereignty for the referendum is explicit in the vote taken by the House tonight? Once the House has decided upon a referendum we can have sovereignty precisely as she said for entry into the Common Market. That is parliamentary sovereignty.

Mrs. Thatcher: Not by the vote taken tonight—

Mr. Whitehead: Yes.

Mrs. Thatcher: Only after the passage of the Bill through all its stages. Parliamentary sovereignty is not changed by declaration of the House, but only after the passage of a Bill through the House of Commons and the House of Lords, and after the giving of the Royal Assent, exactly the same passage as the European Communities Bill followed fully, after which we became a signatory to the treaty.
If we had a Government with enough courage to make a decision and give a clear lead, they would resign if they were defeated by the decision of the people. But, if I understand him correctly, the right hon. Gentleman has said elsewhere that the Government would not resign if the referendum went against their recommendation. Contrast Norway, which is used as an example for a referendum, where the Government resigned. But we understand that some members of the Government would resign. [An HON. MEMBER: "Stupid."] It is not very stupid, if one believes in collective responsibility. What the right hon. Gentleman is doing is to demolish collective responsibility for Labour Party convenience. He has a device so that the Government may stay, even if they are held in no confidence by the people. The people may say "We object to your main point of policy ", but nevertheless they have a device to stay in power, divided though they may be.
The third point I wish to make is the effect of a referendum on representative Government. The point was put forcibly in a debate on a Reference to the People Bill introduced in another place on 2nd March 1911. The Lord Chancellor then pointed out that our system, which has been copied all over the world, is one

of representative Government under which those who have not time to look into every detail of this or that Bill choose people who are honourable and with whose opinions they are in harmony to discuss these matters. That has been our system of Government for many years, representative Government in which the representatives consider and discusss all the points in detail. In a popular vote, the voter expresses an individual opinion. In a representative institution, the representative would be expected to consider the interests of minorities and see how the separate measure fitted into the whole. I believe that if we have a referendum system, minorities would not receive anything like such a fair deal as they have under the existing system. I think that that is what the correspondent to the Evening Standard was also trying to say.
The fourth point concerns respect for treaty obligations. The obligations which we assumed by signing and ratifying the treaty were validly, correctly and constitutionally assumed under the full sovereignty and competence of Parliament. The treaty has been in operation for over two years.

The Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. David Ennals): Without the support of the people.

Mrs. Thatcher: Would the right hon. Gentleman wish to put capital punishment to the test of a referendum? Of course he would not, because he is prepared to choose the cases on which he consults the people, according to the convenience of the Government. Perhaps the late Lord Attlee was right when he said that the referendum was a device of dictators and demagogues.
The treaty has been in operation for over two years. I know of no country in the Western World in which a referendum has been used to override a treaty obligation which had been through all its parliamentary stages and had been in operation for two years. Such a step would have a damaging effect on Britain's standing in the world.
We do not even know what the status of the referendum decision is. The right hon. Gentleman's speech did not exactly clarify the position. It is said


that the referendum is advisory or consultative. I believe that if there is a high poll and a clear majority, the result will in fact be binding on Parliament, whatever one may say in law about parliamentary sovereignty. I cannot envisage that a Parliament, whatever individual Members might have thought, if there were a clear vote against— [Interruption.] It is not advisory or consultative in the event of a clear result. It would be binding on everyone. [HON. MEMBERS: "No. "] It would bind and fetter parliamentary sovereignty in practice.
But if there were a low poll, and an indecisive result, the question would arise whether the British people had genuinely given their verdict by their vote. The Government might regard themselves as bound, but the result could not fetter the decision of Parliament. The uncertainty would be likely to be increased and not ended. If the decision were taken to come out on a low poll, it would be possible to argue that a further referendum should be taken when the revised terms of a free trade area were considered and had been through the House. I am sure that one side or the other would find a method to argue for a second referendum in the event of a low poll, and for not accepting the result. We could get into a difficult position by having embarked upon this first referendum without fully considering the consequences.
I turn to the sequence of events which led to this proposal.

Mr. Jeremy Thorpe: The right hon. Lady has enunciated a constitutional principle which some of us found a little difficult to understand. She said that in practice, if there were a large turn-out and a majority one way or the other, Parliament as a whole would be bound. Is she saying that that would over-ride the obligations that Members of Parliament entered into with their constituents at the previous election, which might be entirely different?

Mrs. Thatcher: I thought that I had made the position clear. I am sorry if I have not done so. In law, the result could not fetter Parliament, but I believe that in practice it would. That is all that I said. If there were an overwhelming decision one way or the other, I believe that in practice the, decision

in Parliament would follow the referendum result. That could in no way fetter the way in which Members not fetter them. I was talking only about what I believed would happen in practice what I believed would happen in practice.
We know the sequence of events which led up to this proposal. In 1971, the present Prime Minister was firmly against a referendum. But problems and divisions were arising in his own party, and one group of dissenters campaigned for a referendum. We accept that any hon. Member who holds strong views on the legislation itself is entitled to propose any method which he chooses to defeat it. But when Cabinets and Shadow Cabinets come to deliberate, they should bear in mind all the constitutional consequences of the course of action proposed to be slow to undermine cherished principles which have served liberty well for a long time.
It is quite possible to put a democratic case for having referendum provisions. If a referendum is put forward seriously as a constitutional instrument, we should need to consider the different kinds of referenda involved and what they implied for the present rules and conventions of our political order.
Assuming that we wanted the referendum provisions to apply only to constitutional questions, we should try to define what that means in a British context— an extraordinarily difficult exercise. If we wanted to avoid leaving the decision on whether to have a referendum to the whim of future Governments, we should have to think of some means of limiting its powers.
The White Paper does none of this. It is a practical expedient. It will have far-reaching consequences. The immediate point may be to register a popular view towards staying in the EEC. The longer-term result will be to create a new method of validating laws. What one Minister has used as a tactical advantage on one issue today, others will use for different issues tomorrow. This will lead to a major constitutional change, a change which should only be made if, after full deliberation, it was seriously thought to be a lasting improvement on present practice.
No such deliberation occurs in the White Paper which has been described


in the Sunday Times of 2nd March as reeking
 fittingly of shame There is nothing here of the sovereign people, the higher democracy, the deeper search for a fuller-hearted consent…The Paper is written, unmistakably, by people who have lost all conviction in what they are saying. The referendum's true genesis, as a piece of thoughtless short-term brokerage in the Labour Party, is aptly reflected in the White Paper's dominant tone, which is one of helpless bewilderment at what is about to happen.
We saw that in the speech of the Leader of the House today.
This White Paper has come about because of the Government's concern for internal party interests. It is a licence for Ministers to disagree on central issues but still stay in power. I believe that the right course would be to reject it and to consider the wider constitutional issues properly and at length.

5.43 p.m.

Mr. Jeremy Thorpe: I am delighted to be called immediately after the Leader of the Opposition in what I believe was her maiden speech in that rôle. I agree with much of what she said, save for the constitutional matter which I raised with her in my intervention and with which I should like to deal in a moment.
The only matter which is unique in this whole discussion is that the Government wish to hold a referendum. I should say straight away that many right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House, including some of my own colleagues on the Liberal bench, have on different occasions for different reasons put forward the idea in principle of holding referenda for different purposes. I myself have not. I have always been opposed to them.

Mr. Norman Buchan: Mr. Norman Buchan (Renfrewshire, West) rose—

Mr. Thorpe: I should like at least to start my speech. I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman later. What is unique —
Mr. Buchan rose—

Mr. Thorpe: If the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) wishes to refer to the Feu Duties Bill or to the

Ten-Minute Bill about devolution which include a referendum, certainly I voted for them if that makes him happy.

Mr.Buchan: Mr.Buchan rose—

Mr. Thorpe: I am sorry. I am entitled at least to start my speech. If the hon. Gentleman still feels that he wishes to raise a point with me later, I will give way to him, but not now. I wish to start my speech.
What is unique is that the Government of the day are recommending that we should have a referendum. Since this has not always been the view of the Labour Party, we are entitled to examine the Government's motives for this change just as much as we are the machinery which they are recommending.
On 25th November 1969, at column 199, of the Official Report, when the present Prime Minister was then Prime Minister, he was asked by the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) whether legislation might be introduced for a national referendum on entry into the Common Market once the terms were known. The Prime Minister's reply, which was unusually short and incredibly decisive, was "No, Sir." I know the modesty of the hon. Member for Banbury, and I am sure that he will forgive me if I do not quote his supplementary question because it was not highly relevant or germane to my present argument. But he has at least been consistent in these matters. The Prime Minister went on to say:
 It is contrary to our traditions in this country…Hon. Members on either side of the House do not usually feel that referenda are a way in which to conduct our public affairs. I am sure that a referendum would give 100 per cent. support for increasing expenditure on every item. It would give 100 per cent. support for abolishing income tax.
At that point, Sir Gerald Nabarro intervened to say:
 What a splendid idea!
The Prime Minister went on:
That was what I hoped to imply. It is not a way in which we can do business. These are matters on which hon. Members are elected to the House and they have been free to express their opinions, as they were in the debates in the House, and as they will he again when we are offered terms for joining the Common Market."— [Official Report, 25th November 1969; Vol. 792, c. 199–200.]


Then again, when the Labour Party was in power and the Government published their White Paper (Cmnd. Paper 4289) in February 1970 they said:
 Once the outcome of negotiations is clear, it will then be for Parliament to decide.
If we look at the Labour Party Manifesto of 1970, under the heading,
 Now Britain is strong. Let's make it great to live in.",
there are two references to Europe. The first underlines the desire of the Labour Party
…to play a full part in the future political and economic development of our continent.
The second says:
…we have applied for membership of the EEC and negotiations are due to start in a few weeks' time. These will be pressed with determination with the purpose of joining an enlarged Community provided that British and essential Commonwealth interests can be safeguarded.
Shortly after, in the debates in this House, when there was a majority of 112 on the terms negotiated, I remember asking the present Secretary of State for Employment, who at the time was in an unaccustomed position on the Opposition Front Bench, when at any stage in the 1970 General Election the Labour Party, either in its manifesto or in any speech or broadcast, ever said that before Britain went into the Common Market there would either be a General Election or a referendum and that either one or the other would be a condition precedent. The right hon. Gentleman could not give me that answer, because there was no answer which he could give me. It had never been a condition precedent.
The Leader of the Opposition referred to the speed with which the present Prime Minister sprang to the Dispatch Box on 8th July 1971 to assure the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath), the then Prime Minister, that it was true that he had always been totally consistent in opposing the concept of a referendum. The conversion came in April 1972 as a result of which the Home Secretary, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Mr. George Thomson all resigned from the Shadow Cabinet and the Home Secretary wrote that he could not accept this constant shifting of ground. If I may give the right hon. Gentleman a piece of friendly advice, he should accept the dictum of the old Clydesider, "If you

can't ride two horses at once, you shouldn't be in the ruddy circus at all."
Therefore, we are entitled to ask why the Labour Government have changed their mind. There has not been a sudden democratic rush of blood to the head. If there was any lingering doubt about that, certainly the Leader of the House did not give that impression.
I believe that it would be profoundly unfair to put forward any explanation other than from the lips of the Labour Party itself.
The right hon. Lady the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection, speaking on the Thames Television programme "People and Politics "on 20th February 1975. reported in The Times on the following day, said:
 The Government would have broken up if it had not been decided to hold a referendum ".
She said that although the referendum was bound to cause wounds within the party, she thought it would survive.
 I think Harold is very good at healing wounds
she added. No one has greater experience, and needs to have greater experience, of doing that, than the right hon. Gentleman.
I think we have to accept, when we are looking at the merits of the matter, that when the electors ask, as many of them do, "Why cannot you make up your own minds? We elected you to do the job ", the short answer is, "Because the Labour Government cannot agree, and therefore the nation at public expense is asked to resolve their difficulties ". That is the reason, and it is no good beating around the bush.
We know that the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Foreign Secretary and the Home Secretary will say "Yes ", and that the Secretary of State for Industry, the Secretary of State for Employment, the Minister of Overseas Development and the Secretary of State for Trade will say "No ". They will say respectively "Yes" or "No ", whatever the arguments are, and it will be surprising if the Prime Minister does not announce next week that he has scored a massive triumph in Dublin and he thinks we should all support the idea of staying in Europe.
What is unique is that this is the only occasion on which the Government have had to propose what is a device to paper over their own cracks. But if I do the Labour Party and the Labour Government an injustice and we are having this referendum because it is a matter of great constitutional significance, it is a matter which, as the right hon. Gentleman said in the preface, is unique, if I am charitable and suggest that that is why the Government have changed their minds, is not the question whether Scotland and Wales wish, or do not wish, to secede from the United Kingdom, whatever views we may have, not a pretty profound constitutional decision? If there are many people who disagree with the whole electoral system under which Members are elected, whatever views people have on other questions, is not that a matter of great constitutional importance? Where do we draw the line? Why is it right for one and not for the other?
If we believe that, why do not we have Sunday opening, where there is a matter of local option?

Mr. Buchan: Mr. Buchan rose—

Mr. Thorpe: If the hon. Gentleman has in mind the Ten-Minute Rule Bill on which I voted I shall give way in a moment and put him out of his agony. Why not have a referendum on whether we should drive on the right hand side of the road? Why should we not have had one on decimalisation? That would have guaranteed it would never have happened. If we could have had one on decimalisation the answer would have been "No ", and if we were to have a referendum now on whether we should go back to the old system of currency the answer would also be "No ". The Government, unless they are going to be charged with introducing a cynical device, have to show why it is the uniqueness of this constitutional issue which calls for a referendum for all time but on no other issues.

Mr. Buchan: The right hon. Gentleman referred to a referendum on this issue for all time, but on no others, and mentioned the question of devolution in Scotland. That was all to buttress the fact that, among other things, he and the Liberal Party opposed the question of a

referendum on that matter, as they did on other issues.
In the Session 1968–69, a Private Member's Bill was debated at length on a Friday. I replied to the debate and pointed out that the Bill should not be passed until the constitutional commission had reported. It was a Liberal Bill, introduced by Mr. James Davidson, then the Member for Aberdeenshire, West. It was the Scotland and Wales (Referenda) Bill, the sponsors of which were Mr. James Davidson, Mr. Jo Grimond—

Mr. Sneaker: Order.

Mr. Buchan: —Mr. Emlyn Hooson, Mr. Russell Johnson and Mr. David Steel.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must resume his seat when I rise. I think that this is an abuse of an intervention. The hon. Member is making a speech. He can put a point to the right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) if he gives way, but he must not read out a list of names.

Mr. Thorpe: The hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West may not have been here at the beginning of my speech. I said that many right hon. and hon. Members, including Members of the Liberal Party, had voted for the concept of a referendum, and voted for the Bill introduced by Mr. Davidson, then the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman exerted so much time and effort on bringing out that point. I readily concede it. We are entitled to ask why the Government, who have consistently as a party and as the Government opposed a referendum on the issue of Europe, have now come round and changed their view, and the short answer is that no one has deflected us from that—

Mr. Buchan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I remind the hon. Member that there are many hon. Members who wish to take part in the debate.

Mr. Buchan: With respect, Mr. Speaker, this is an important point. I challenged the right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) on a matter of truth, which was rejected. I am prepared to take the right hon. Gentleman's last few remarks as an apology for his


previous statement which denied the truth of what I was saying.

Mr. Thorpe: The next point that is important is the view of the Government—

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: Mr. Gwilym Roberts rose—

Mr. Thorpe: I am sorry, but I must get on.
The Government have indicated in paragraph 7 that even if there is only a one vote majority out of 30 million or 40 million they will be bound by it. This is a totally new constitutional concept. They are strictly entitled to say that they will accept the result, however low the poll, but they have indicated that if they make a firm recommendation that they wish, for example, to remain in Europe, and there is a majority, however small, against remaining in Europe, they will stay in office. That is because they believe it is not a sufficiently important issue upon which they should resign, but in the next breath they say it is a sufficiently important issue on which to have a referendum. They cannot have it both ways.
In other words, this is as important as the Reform Bill, as the problems of Ireland in 1886 and tariff questions. It is as important as all those, hence a referendum. Yet when it comes to the decision staying in power is more important than listening to that view. Alternatively, the Government are saying in their recommendations, "These are our principles, but if you do not like them we should try to find others later on ".
Then we move on to the question of the count. Presumably we shall see special trains travelling through the night and British Road Services' lorries trundling through country lanes bringing 40 million ballot papers to a place which has not been discovered, but which we think will be Earls Court.
I want to make it plain that I am opposed to an inter-nation count. I hope that Government Members will listen They may not agree with me, but I hope they will do me the courtesy of listening to what I have to say. I am opposed to a special count for Wales, for Scotland, for Northern Ireland and for England because if, as could well happen, there is a different decision in those different

nations, the logic should be that those individual nations should have the right to secede from the Common Market, and therefore from the United Kingdom.
The Scottish and Welsh National Parties are in favour of separation from the United Kingdom, but I believe that if that decision is to be taken it must not be taken by the back door of a referendum on something else. It must be taken by a General Election which shows that in Scotland and Wales a majority of Members and a majority of voters are in favour of separation. We have a constitutional issue of great magnitude, but it should be resolved though the ballot box and not by a referendum.

Mr. Henderson: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that in Scottish eyes the United Kingdom Parliament is not entirely sovereign, but that it is bound by the terms of a bargain into which the Scottish nation and the other nations of these islands joined in 1707 and that the Scottish people are entitled to decide whether the sovereignty of Scotland, which at present resides in this House, should be transferred to any third party?

Mr. Thorpe: I do not know whether it helps at this stage if Scotland is technically at war with France or whether the Act of Union was or was not a handout for gold. If there is to be a change in the relationship between the constituent parts of the United Kingdom it should be the result of a democratic election at which the electors of the United Kingdom have a say— not by a referendum but by a parliamentary election.

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: Mr. Gwilym Roberts rose—

Mr. Thorpe: I cannot answer more than one intervention at a time, and some hon. Members may feel that there have been too many already.
It would be much more frustrating to the Nationalist Parties to have a decision taken which was then totally ignored, rather than to have the problem of secession or non-separation decided by the normal constitutional means of the ballot paper. That is how I would contest it.
The more I look at the idea of a national count, the more I believe that it has grave disadvantages. First, it will take five days. What that period of uncertainty will do to investments and to the


pound is something on which, no doubt, the Chancellor of the Exchequer will have views.
Paragraph 13 of the White Paper states that we shall be using the existing returning officers. Therefore, I see no reason why the count cannot either be at constituency level or at county level. There are those who say that to have it at constituency level would mean that a Member of Parliament would be pressurised and mandated to carry out the views of his electorate which might be different from the views he expressed at his election. It ill becomes hon. Members to put forward that argument when they are taking away certain of the decision-making powers of Members of Parliament by having a referendum. They cannot have it both ways.
I am in favour of a count, preferably at constituency level. If that cannot be arranged— and I see no reason why it cannot— it must be at county level. It is not sufficient, in paragraph 21, to say that a national count is the "most appropriate ". That is not giving us the benefit of the Government's profound thinking.
On the question of postal votes, I am afraid that the Leader of the House, with great respect, is not entirely seized of the matter. Unless a person was resident on the qualifying date, for example, October, he would not be on the register. Many thousands of people working abroad are not on the register. Some of them are closely involved in the outcome of this referendum. They represent this country in the Community.
The guide we should follow and at which I invite the Leader of the House to look is the referendum in Northern Ireland. There the facilities given for postal votes were extremely generous and, while there was the usual initial hostility from civil servants, who said it could not be done, people who were on holiday abroad, and who had difficulties did receive a postal vote. I see the right hon. Member for Penrith and the Border (Mr. Whitelaw) present. I am sure he will agree that there was a high turn-out.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: The right hon. Member will recollect that that was consistent with the form of the franchise in Northern Ireland for local elections, both to the Assembly and for

local government. That does not apply to the rest of the Kingdom.

Mr. Thorpe: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I think he will also agree that never before at an election had it been easier to get a postal vote than during that campaign. For the first time, people on holiday were able to have postal votes. For once Northern Ireland has pointed the way in democracy. It may be an unusual experience but that is the position and I should like to see it followed here.
If the British people are free to vote we should like to be certain that the House of Commons will also be free to vote. It would be rather strange if we were whipped here and the British electorate had a free vote.
The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) mentioned the Government's information unit, referred to in paragraph 31 of the White Paper. This will be a fascinating outfit. It will give not only factual information but an interpretation of the renegotiated terms. Presumably both Government points of view will have to be represented at all times. Individuals will decide their fancy and then decide which of the two doors to enter— the one marked "In" or the one marked "Out ". If an hon. Member goes in the door marked "In ", he will probably find a representative of the Home Secretary, but if he goes in the door marked "Out" there will probably be a representative of the Secretaries of State for Trade, Industry or Employment. It will be interesting to know how this is to be worked out.
I am not all that happy about the so-called "umbrella organisations ". It is true that many hon. Members will be closely associated with both umbrellas. We are shovelling money and a considerable amount of political power to the umbrella organisations, one of which is headed by a retired diplomat and the other by an obscure lawyer.

Mr. Neil Marten: Mr. Neil Marten (Banbury) rose—

Mr. Thorpe: I am not referring to the hon. Gentleman. I am talking about the apparatchik who will be in charge.

Mr. Marten: I think I know to whom the right hon. Gentleman is referring. That gentleman is merely the head of


one of the organisations affiliated to the National Referendum Campaign which is the umbrella organisation of which I happen to be the chairman.

Mr. Thorpe: I will gladly withdraw. I shall merely refer to the lawyer as an obscure spoke in the umbrella. The hon. Gentleman is the spring of the umbrella. We have to look carefully at these umbrella organisations which will be given a great deal of taxpayers' money and political power.
We are being asked to introduce a referendum, not because, after long and mature reflection, we believe that this is a way in which we can improve the political life of this country, but to help the Prime Minister unify his party. The taxpayer will be asked to pay for the expensive business of trying to unify the Labour Party. This has been described as a White Paper with green edges. In my view those edges are rather brown.
Unless we are given a firm undertaking people will regard the referendum as symptomatic of the withdrawal symptoms which the Government have been showing in the past few years after their keen Europeanism at the time of "never taking no for an answer ". It is a cynical way to introduce this constitutional practice. I shall vote against it.

6.9 p.m.

Mr. Roy Hughes: I am grateful for being allowed to take part in this debate on the proposal to hold a referendum.
There are people who say that the electorate cannot be trusted in this matter and that they do not understand the issues. I refer to the words of the late Hugh Gaitskell when, in 1962, he said that this was the message of the tyrants throughout the centuries. Nevertheless, it is a fact that many people, especially Conservative Members, quite needlessly work themselves up into a lather about this issue.
The principle of a referendum has been built into the constitutions of many countries. They were held efficiently and without much bother. Over many years leading figures in the Conservative Party have advocated a referendum. Before the First World War it was the official policy of the Tory Party on

the vexed question, then as now, of Home Rule for Ireland. In 1930 Mr. Stanley Baldwin advocated a referendum on Empire Free Trade. The late Sir Winston Churchill in 1945 proposed one in a letter to the party leaders to decide whether the life of that Parliament should be extended. Since the Conservative Party is the party of tradition, it ill behoves it to react in this way. In passing I might add that we have referenda on Sunday opening in Wales from time to time. They are held efficiently, and are quite progressive.
The whole Common Market business was simply steam-rollered through the House. We are reminded of the majority of 112, but we are not reminded of the fact that on the issue of principle, in the Second Reading debate, the majority was only eight. That measure was certainly put through without the "full-hearted consent of the British people "which the then Prime Minister promised us.
There is concern now that ordinary people should have a say about this great issue and that they might even vote against the Establishment in the form of the Foreign Office, big business and so on. The Labour Party won two elections last year on this issue. It was clearly a point of principle then and I am glad that the Government have decided to honour their promise. This referendum means more than paying lip-service to the subject. It is essential that it should be fair. The dice must not be loaded. The Government have a heavy responsibility here. We know that for a long time every national newspaper has been greatly in favour of the Common Market. They have exercised all manner of distortions and censorship to point out the merits of the Common Market. The BBC has even digressed from its usual high standards.
We had the serious speech by the Economic Commissioner, Mr. Haferkamp, on 19th February at the Common Market Parliament in Strasbourg. He said that it was time the people were told the truth and that the days of fast increases in prosperity were gone for ever. He forecast virtual stagnation of the economies of the Nine. People will have to make sacrifices, he said. This is a rather different picture from that painted for the people of Britain.
Private enterprise in this country is, I am afraid, practising a form of arm-twisting. We have had the case of the Hoover company at Merthyr which has told its employees that if Britain does not remain in the Common Market it does not intend to go ahead with its expansion plans. Paragraph 39 of the White Paper expresses the hope that the campaign will not interfere with industrial relations. If companies act in this way, that will be the effect.

Mr. Carlisle: Is the hon. Gentleman seriously suggesting that a company does not have a responsibility to point out to its work force the serious danger to their employment if we should withdraw from Europe?

Mr. Hughes: It will be appreciated that the trade unions should have the opportunity to put the contrary viewpoint. A representative of the Brussels bureaucracy was allowed to tour those works last week but no similar facility was given to those who wish to put the opposite case. This is an example of the prejudice being practised.
The Government have a difficult job in ensuring that there is fair play on both sides. I am not at all happy about some of the proposals in the White Paper. There is the question posed on page 4 which speaks of the "European Community ". That is a very cosy term. We know that the ordinary people of Britain have always known this organisation as the Common Market. Again, the question talks about staying in the European Community. It would be more neutral if we asked "Should we be in the Common Market? "At the very least the words "Common Market "should be included in parenthesis after "European Community ".
Paragraph 10 of the White Paper talks about consultations with various bodies and organisations. I understand that the National Executive of the Labour Party took a point on this. It felt that the words "Common Market" should he included in the question.
Likewise, the organisation of which the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) said he was chairman wants "Common Market" to be included in the question. It is notable that since the White Paper has been published it is

the pro-Marketeers who are highly satisfied with the document rather than those who are opposed to Britain's membership of the Common Market.
There is also the issue of the count. The proposal is that it should be on a national basis. This is quite alien to British tradition. We all know our parliamentary counts on a constituency basis. People understand the arrangements. This suggestion of a national count is nothing short of a gift to the Nationalists. Serious consideration should be given to the count being organised on a constituency basis so as to make it more meaningful. There are some pro-Marketeers who are a bit shy, or coy, about this. I would have thought that they want to know what they their constituents feel about this. If they are sincere in their beliefs they have nothing to fear.
This is particularly relevant because, as the Leader of the House said this afternoon, hon. Members will be expected to adhere to the decision. That is all the more reason for them to know what their constituencies think about it. The Government recommendations contained in paragraphs 25 to 31 of the White Paper talk about collective responsibility. We are not in a collective situation. It is an open secret that various leading members of the Government— and leading members of the Opposition, too— are ready to speak out against the renegotiated terms. If any document is to be sent out it should contain not only a majority viewpoint but a minority viewpoint. It might be better if there were no recommendation at all.
Next, there is the question of the setting up of an information unit. This can only have the effect of bringing the Civil Service into politics. We criticised the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) when he used the services of the Post Office a few years ago, and the present suggestion could be an even worse transgression.
Paragraphs 35 to 39 of the document refer to expenditure limitation. We know on which side the money bags are on this issue It has always been a case of big business versus the people of Britain. What we can say is that the people of Britain have been remarkably resilient, despite all the millions of pounds that have been spent on propaganda over the years. I ask whether it is too late even


at this stage for some sort of parity to be introduced into this campaign.
In the matter of advertising in the Press and on hoardings, there are two alternatives. One is to ban it altogether, apart from the actual notices of meetings, or if one side is to be offered these facilities, similar facilities ought to be offered to the other side as well. In the referendum in Denmark— and we know what the people of Denmark think about the Common Market— the people were swamped in the last week of the campaign with propaganda in the newspapers. Some very costly advertisements were inserted, and the people, so it seems in retrospect, were swayed against their better judgments. The Government must at least provide the necessary finance to ensure that both sides get a fair crack of the whip.
This referendum is essentially a victory for the anti-marketeers. Despite all the mass indoctrination over the years, it is obvious that the people of Britain have no enthusiasm at all for the Common Market. If the pro-Marketeers say that this is the issue of the age, this transformation cannot take place without the wholehearted consent of the people. That is why I support the referendum.

6.23 p.m.

Mr. Richard Wood: For a number of years I have found myself walking through one Lobby or the other at the end of our debates with a variable sense of enthusiasm, and, no doubt, hon. Members have shared that feeling. The vote that I cast tonight against this White Paper will be one of the most enthusiastic that I have ever cast during my membership of the House of Commons.
This White Paper is said to be a consultative document. Most of those who have so far spoken have talked about its green edges. The Lord President of the Council is said to be waiting for helpful and constructive ideas. If I were convinced that the purpose of the suggested referendum was purely, or even mainly, to discover the will of the British people, I should like to respond to the invitation of the Lord President of the Council. I always like to do my best to be helpful. In fact, I can gather no impetus to support a manoeuvre which seems to me to be clearly designed less to test public opinion

than to preserve the unity of the Labour Party, and to preserve it, as the Leader of the Liberal Party has made clear, at a very considerable cost to the taxpayer. This is, therefore, my first reason for opposing this White Paper.
My second reason is, no doubt, shared by many hon. Members. I really am appalled at the naĩvety of the authors of this White Paper who say in the second sentence of the preface:
 The referendum is to be held because of the unique nature of the issue…".
I think this is a terribly dangerous argument. In a real sense every political issue and, indeed, every individual member of our society is unique. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition is clearly unique. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, for very different reasons, can also probably be considered unique; and so with all kinds of political issues.
I do not go along entirely with the suggestion, which has been attributed to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Sir M. Havers), that the referendum, if it is held, should include a question on capital punishment, but that is indeed an issue that certainly has a claim to uniqueness. So have a great many others.
I do not believe that a referendum on the membership of the European Community would be unconstitutional. That, I think, would be quite a wrong doctrine. But a referendum in the United Kingdom would certainly be unique, and there is a great deal to be said for the suggestion, repeated this afternoon by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, that before making this new departure from our normal practice, it might be appropriate first to hold a referendum on the wisdom and desirability of doing so.
Is this European issue unique because the sovereignty of Parliament is going to be substantially reduced? Is the sovereignty of Parliament substantially reduced if, in fact, Parliament retains the power to reverse previous decisions? We are now members of the European Community. Can we, if we were so disposed, now extract ourselves from it? Presumably the answer is yes. Otherwise the referendum proposal is an even greater nonsense than I thought. But if


we can still get out of the European Community, it seems to me that the limitations on our freedom of action imposed by signing the Treaty of Rome have been greatly exaggerated.
Therefore, the European issue is neither so unique, nor does it involve such an exceptional or irrevocable surrender of sovereignty as to satisfy the Government's own criteria for this singular appeal to the British people.

Mr. Bryan Gould: Would the right hon. Gentleman not accept that the whole object and purpose of those who took us into Europe and who passed the European Communities Act is to subject this House and the country to a superior legal system which would in the end make the repeal of the Act impossible?

Mr. Wood: There will, no doubt, be opportunities later to argue this whole question of the diminution of sovereignty. What I have said is that our sovereignty has not been so diminished as to make it a unique issue demanding a referendum to decide whether the decision that has been taken continues or whether it is changed. That is my second reason for opposing it.
My other reasons for doing so can, I am glad to assure you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, be put rather more briefly. I have so far no evidence to convince me that our constituents are falling over themselves to pronounce on this issue of Europe. I suspect that a very large number of them would be only too willing to ask Parliament to take this decision on their behalf— not because they think that hon. Members are wiser than they are. I think any examination of the letters which we receive from our constituents— when they happen to reach us — would quickly shatter any illusion that any sense of our superior wisdom, which we may sometimes be tempted to believe we possess, is shared by anyone outside the Palace of Westminster.
There are, however, many people outside Parliament, who may be unimpressed by our superior wisdom, but who none-the-less recognise that this is an issue with which Parliament has lived for getting on for two decades; which is an advantage—or a disadvantage— shared by relatively few people outside. I believe that many

of the others will take the view that this is, therefore, a decision for Parliament if only because of our constantly growing familiarity with most of the questions and the arguments.
My last reason for believing that this is a decision for Parliament, following a strong Government lead, is that this is patently not a decision which affects us alone—neither our generation only, nor exclusively the British people.
It is true that vision and imagination, like wisdom, are not the peculiar possession of hon. Members. But Governments have the advantage of information, which is not available to others, about the likely effect of their actions on others, both at home and abroad. The function of Governments is to lead, and I hope that we shall be given a clear lead at the conclusion of the Dublin Summit. The function of Governments is also to decide, and while no sensible Government goes ahead blindly with no regard to public opinion, it is for the Government to reach decisions. I hope and pray that the Government will ultimately face their responsibility to do so, because the Government, more clearly than any of us, can see the effect of the decision that will be taken this year on millions of people in Europe, Asia, Africa, America and the end of the world, and on millions of people who have not yet been born.
The effect of our decision on Britain is important, but the opportunity which that decision can give Britain among the other nations of the world, for the rest of this century and beyond, will help to shape the kind of world our children and grandchildren will live in. The Government are, or ought to be, better equipped than the most eminent individuals outside to look across the horizons which limit the vision of most of us. Yet they shiver on the brink of great decisions and aim to unload their great responsibility on shoulders which appear very reluctant to bear the burden.
Therefore, even at this late hour, I beg the Government to forget this farce of a referendum and to be worthy of this historic opportunity, or else give way to people who are.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): There are over 50 hon. Members who wish to participate in the debate. If others will follow the example of the


right hon. Gentleman, who is one of our most senior Members, but who took only 10 minutes, it will help us all.

6.32 p.m.

Mr. Paul B. Rose: At a time of historic opportunity to which the right hon. Member for Bridlington (Mr. Ward) has referred, I must confess that I am somewhat disappointed with the arid legalism of the speech of the right hon. Lady the Leader of the Opposition.
I understand the difficulties encountered by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, acting within the terms of reference that are given to him, in producing a White Paper on a referendum which is supposed to be fair to both sides, because this constitutional instrument, within the context of a Parliament which is supposed to be supreme, cannot be fair. Further, the way in which we pose the questions and the questions which we ask must to some extent determine the answers that are given. It has been said by many Opposition Members that this is a compromise. Of course it is a compromise, and we should be taking the electorate for fools if we were not to accept that it is a compromise.
As a committed European I should regard it as a far greater evil for the Labour Party—the greatest party in the country—and the Labour movement, which was spawned in Western Europe from Western European ideas, to turn its back on democratic socialism in Europe than to have to go through the rather shoddy business of a referendum. The turning of our backs on Europe is a greater evil and this is a lesser evil, which I am afraid we have to accept.
It has been suggested that we have a precedent for a referendum because some time ago we debated—and I participated in the debate—the question of the Northern Ireland referendum. What on earth did the Northern Ireland referendum decide? Did it decide anything? The result of the referendum in Northern Ireland was to decide nothing. The way in which the question was posed was one which many of my right hon. and hon. Friends found unacceptable, because there were many other questions that might have been posed in that referendum. Condominium was one that was

canvassed very widely by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt). Therefore, the way in which a question is posed inevitably must affect the referendum.
Many of us would like a third question in this referendum—a question which has been referred to already, namely, whether the elected representative of a constituency should abdicate his responsibilities. Despite what my hon. Friend the Member for Newport (Mr. Hughes) said, there are some of us who have the courage to face our constituents and to vote in the way we believe is right and to answer for our vote. If we are prepared to do that, we are prepared to vote in the House and to offer ourselves for re-election.
It is right to say that there is a third alternative, namely, a conscious decision by an elector to decide that his elected representative, having considered the matter, should vote. In the only survey or referendum that I have conducted in my constituency I found that two-thirds of my constituents took the view, when the alternatives were posed, that an elected representative must take the decision. One-third came out broadly in favour of doing what the majority of constituents wanted—whatever that might be at any given time—and 4 per cent. said that the Member should vote according to what his local party thought.
The referendum, as an instrument, is open to manipulation as regards timing and the way in which the question is posed. I welcomed the assurance that I understand my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House gave, that we shall be given the opportunity of declaring our views in debate prior to a final decision under the terms of the referendum. It is we who should ultimately decide this issue and whether the boundaries of Europe are to be drawn from Derry to Dundalk, and perhaps with 20 miles of sea out from Dover to separate us from the rest of Europe. It is we who have to decide whether those 20 miles of sea and perhaps an RUC patrol at Crossmaglen will keep the tide of Europe out of Britain.
There is no precedent in this country, or indeed any other country, for this kind of referendum. What has been universally acknowledged to be uncharted territory


is a referendum in the context of a system of the supremacy of Parliament. Whereas in other systems the question may be posed by a president or some other body we in this Parliament are the ones who decide the question.
One could draw up a very impresive list of divergencies from precedents in the form of a General Election. This is not a General Election. This is new. My hon. Friend the Member for Newport missed the whole point when he said "Let us vote by constituency ", because the whole purpose of a referendum is to overcome the constituency boundaries and to declare the view of the nation as a whole.

Mr. Gould: Would my hon. Friend agree that referenda have been held in New Zealand where there is a unitary and unwritten constitution virtually identical to our own and where the doctrine of supremacy of Parliament also prevails?

Mr. Rose: That may be so, and I do not doubt that my hon. Friend has a great deal more knowledge than I have of New Zealand. However, there is no precedent, as far as I know, for a referendum in New Zealand which will assist us in coming to this decision. All I know is that in both New Zealand and Australia it has been declared by those in office that it would be no advantage to them if we were to leave the European Community.
We are concerned today with a referendum and not a General Election. In regard to the preamble, the form of the question and the way in which the votes are counted, it would be entirely wrong to base our assumptions on what has occurred in the past in General Elections.
I am concerned about the umbrella organisations mentioned in the White Paper. Who elected the umbrella organisations? To whom are they responsible? I do not want to coalesce with the right hon. Lady the Leader of the Opposition. I want to work for a Socialist Europe with my social democratic friends in Europe and through the Labour Committee for Europe. I do not want an umbrella organisation.
I should like to know what is to happen to the funds that go to the other organisation. given that there are 23 anti-Common

Market bodies affiliated to a committee which shares the same address as the National Front used during the last General Election and which are used as a front for that organisation. Is the money that is allocated by the House to find its way into the pockets of King Street, for example, or into the pockets of the National Front?
Who elected the umbrella organisations? To whom are they responsible? Or are we the people who are responsible to the electorate?

Mr. Marten: Will the hon. Gentleman say to which address he was referring? The National Referendum Campaign, which is the umbrella organisation, has an address which I do not think has any connection at all with the party to which the hon. Gentleman has referred.

Mr. Rose: Of course not. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right with regard to that umbrella organisation. There is the Federation of Anti-Common Market Organisations with, I think, 23 bodies affiliated to it. I absolve the hon. Gentleman's organisation entirely from that and no slur should be cast upon it. I suggest that it is very difficult to keep certain elements out of an organisation. This applies equally to the other side, whether it be the Union Movement, which is another Fascist organisation—

Mr. Douglas Jay: Smear.

Mr. Rose: It is not a smear. I hope that my right hon. Friend will listen to the argument. He regards it as a smear. It is no more a smear than the fact that the Union Movement and other Fascist organisations take the European point of view.

Mr. Jay: Give the names.

Mr. Rose: The point I seek to make is that this money will go to extremist bodies—

Mr. Jay: Give the names.

Mr. Rose: —on both sides of the fence which are not elected, which did not seek election at the last General Election, and which have no mandate.

Mr. Jay: Give the names.

Mr. Rose: I do not seek to attack one side or the other in respect of this. It applies to both equally.

Mr. Jay: What is a smear, and I do not think that my hon. Friend can have intended it, is to mention a body and not to give the name and not to give its address.

Mr. Rose: I did give the name.

Mr. Jay: My hon. Friend did not. He also hinted that the body concerned is associated with the National Front.

Mr. Rose: If only my right hon. Friend would listen. I gave the name, but he was so busy saying "Give the name" that he did not listen to the name. It was the Federation of Anti-Common Market Organisations. If my right hon. Friend is unaware of it, I will supply him with full details all of which have been published and I am prepared to supply him with all of them.

Mr. Jay: There are no such bodies. Mr. Rose: There are.
I was saying that money allocated by the House should not be allowed to go to unrepresentative organisations on either side. It is that point alone—it is not intended as a slur, as I am sure my right hon. Friend will accept—that I wish to make.
I find it distinctly curious today that the murmurs of disapproval in relation to the White Paper presented by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House seem to come from the very people who were most enthusiastic about the holding of a referendum and who obviously failed to appreciate the implications of so doing. The dangers of it were shown by the hon. and learned Member for Wimbledon (Sir M. Havers), who only this weekend suggested that a further question relating to capital punishment should be tagged on.
The problem about such a course is that everyone has his own priorities. I am being asked, and I am sure this applies to many of my hon. Friends, "Why can we not have a referendum on capital punishment, on abortion, on immigration? "and on a host of other subjects about which people feel passionately. Although that can be countered by the constitutional argument, we all know that this can be the thin end of the wedge.
Above all, the referendum does not avoid division. It avoids a decision being taken by those who are responsible. The divisions are apparent even in this debate and they have not been avoided by this mechanism being used. Indeed, the divisions became very bitter indeed during the referenda in Norway and Denmark.
So having appealed to the referee, having got this decision in the form of the White Paper, we now have shouts of disapproval from those who most wanted the White Paper in the first place. The problem we now face is that we shall have to go into a referendum in a situation where those who most wanted it will no longer feel entirely bound by the results, because they will say that the question is unfair to start with. This was the very matter about which some of us uttered warnings when we embarked on the uncharted territory of a referendum in the first place. It is because of that that these people are already showing signs of disapproval.
I want to deal with one matter which was raised by the Leader of the Liberal Party. I should like the votes to be counted on a national basis. There are hon. Members opposite who, for very understandable reasons, would also like the vote to be based on the historic nations of Wales and Scotland. I should not like to see a vote cast in Wales or in Scotland which is not a vote upon the question of membership of the European Economic Community, in which I would hope that the regions will play an even greater part than they now do as the national States begin to lose some of their control. I should like the vote to be a vote upon the question of Europe and not upon the question of their status.
Further, if it turned out that we were within 100,000 votes one way or the other, I should like to know whether the votes of, say, Ulster decided the fate of my constituents. Many of us may be concerned about this.

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: On the question of separate counts for Wales and Scotland in particular, and in regard to the possibility of this being associated with devolution, may I refer back to the point my hon. Friend made about additional questions and the weird suggestion that non-constitutional issues might be


included? Does he not agree, however, that there is a constitutional issue as well involved for those two areas, namely, the question of new legislatures in Wales and Scotland? Would it not be useful, when having a separate count, to put in an additional question in Wales and in Scotland asking whether the people there want legislatures, because in Wales at any rate it seems very unlikely that they do?

Mr. Rose: My hon. Friend has illustrated my point about the thin edge of the wedge, namely, that once we start on this slippery slope there is no end to the questions which could be appended to the paper.
I believe that in a great political party like our own a decision should be taken, and it should be a Cabinet decision. When we were in Opposition we voted as a party on a three-line Whip against the principle of entry in Europe. I was one of those who defied that Whip. I make no apology for that. I take responsibility for my action I think that every Member of the House should take responsibility for his action.
How much more so in Government should a party with a Cabinet accept responsibility for its decision? I find it abhorrent that our party, having placed upon its members a three-line Whip in Opposition, should now in Government say that there should be one law for one side and one for the other.
It is the first and perhaps the most grave indictment of the referendum that one thing has been destroyed in this country, and that is the principle of collective responsibility of the Cabinet. That is the indictment of the referendum which above all should make my right hon. Friends think again. We are to have this referendum, but I sincerely hope that this is the first and the last time we shall play around with that sort of fire.

6.49 p.m.

Mr. James Molyneaux: I am not quite sure whether the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose) dissociated himself at the last General Election from his party's manifesto.
At an earlier stage the hon. Gentleman cast some doubt on the value of referenda. He said that very little notice

was taken of the overwhelming decision and verdict of the Ulster people when they were asked to say whether they wished to remain within the United Kingdom. I am inclined to agree with the hon. Gentleman that little notice was taken. I am only sorry that so few people in the House were then prepared to accept and are still unwilling to accept that decision as settling the matter for the foreseeable future.
There is much truth in what has been said against the idea of a referendum. I suppose that many hon. Members would agree that such a device is alien to our British constitution and incompatible with our system of parliamentary democracy. All that would have been true until the early part of 1972. Until that time those arguments were valid. But in 1972, which was a very bad year for British parliamentary democracy, they suffered two severe blows, not unrelated, delivered by the same hand.
The first blow was when the Prime Minister of the day, mandated to negotiate— nothing more, nothing less— drove his Government and party into this European entanglement in the face of fierce opposition in Parliament. It might be claimed that on Second Reading a majority of eight was adequate. But if we discount the 100 or so who were not exactly free agents, we cannot help feeling that that so-called endorsement, such as it was, was very far removed from the full-hearted consent of the British people. That being so, it is hardly surprising that there has been a demand that the people's opinion should no longer be suppressed and that alternative means ought to be found to give expression to that opinion.
The second blow to our parliamentary democracy was dealt when the freely elected Parliament of Northern Ireland was abolished "at a stroke ". No satisfactory reason was ever given. Indeed, when pressed, the then Prime Minister, in Pilate-like fashion, said that he could find no fault therein. It was just that the elected Ulster Parliament had to go. Let us not fool ourselves. It had to go because it committed the crime of accurately reflecting the views of the electorate.
The destruction of the Northern Ireland Parliament made the slide to a referendum inevitable. That was unconsciously


conceded by the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) when lie said:
 This Government, and their predecessors, have given solemn and repeated assurances that the position of Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom will not be changed without the consent of the people of Northern Ireland."— [Official Report, 24th March 1972; Vol. 833, c. 1862.]
The old reference to the Parliament of Northern Ireland had been deleted. We had
 the consent of the people of Northern Ireland.
There was therefore nothing left but a referendum. Unfortunately, many hon. Members supported its imposition on the people of Northern Ireland.
I submit that that was the primary cause for having this White Paper before us today. It was that primary cause, not the so-called differences of opinion within the Labour Party, that brought us to this position.
I turn now to the layout of the ballot paper. We have taken the view that the preamble, which we regard as prejudicial, should be omitted. If it is not there to influence, as the Leader of the House said, what is the purpose of having it?
We object to the word "stay" for reasons that have already been given by other speakers. It may acknowledge that we are in the EEC, but the whole basis on which the referendum is being considered is that the original decision to enter was taken without the authority of the British people. We submit that the word "be "should be substituted for "stay ".
As for the term "European Community ", we wonder why "Economic" has been omitted. We find that somewhat ambiguous. On those grounds we are a little suspicious. Indeed, there is a great deal to be said for the suggestion that the more familiar term "Common Market" might be used.
On publicity, it is not clear at this stage whether there are to be two sets of views from two umbrella organisations in addition to the Government's recommendation. If the Government's recommendation is to be the third element in this bit of light reading, surely it would be fair to give this in the form of a majority recommendation and a minority view.
I turn now to the count, on which Ulster Unionists have strong views. On the legislation providing for the Northern Ireland Border poll we took the view that, as the first question posed was,
 Do you want Northern Ireland to remain part of the United Kingdom? ",
the test of opinion applied to Northern Ireland as a unit. We therefore thought that it might be logical that in this referendum the count should be conducted centrally and the result announced as one total. If on that occasion it was to be a Northern Ireland question, it followed that it should be a Northern Ireland answer. If we are to be consistent with this referendum, we must say that, in theory at least, as the question of membership of the EEC relates to the future of the United Kingdom as a whole, it follows that a central count and a central announcement of the total result would be most appropriate.
However, we appreciate that what may be logical may not be practical. If it is found impossible to conduct a central count, we feel that the only alternative is a count at constituency level as in a General Election. In a General Election we in Northern Ireland participate in the same way, under the same Act of Parliament, as any other part of the United Kingdom. In that event, the individual constituency verdicts make their collective contribution to the national outcome with all its consequences.
It should hardly be necessary for me to remind the House that Ulster Unionists are not separatists. Indeed, it would be a contradiction in terms if we were. We are therefore of the opinion that no advantage would be gained by obtaining a separate Ulster result as distinct from a United Kingdom verdict.

6.58 p.m.

Mr. Michael English: I was very puzzled at the beginning of the debate. The two opening speeches seemed strange indeed in that they were totally different not merely in political views, but in aim. I rather felt, until I realised the inaptness of the analogy, that they were like mediaeval knights who set their lances in rest, charged across the field at each other, totally missed, and ended up in the bushes on the other side.
For example, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, rightly in my view, went into some degree of detail on the way in which this referendum would be conducted, which is somewhat essential if we are to have a referendum.
On the other hand, the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) went a great deal into high principle on whether we should have referenda or not without mentioning whether she wanted this particular referendum to be fair or unfair in any respect. The two speakers did not seem to be even on the same wavelength.
I felt that the wording of the speech of the right hon. Lady the Leader of the Opposition was a little inapt. There is another analogy. I would have said that her brief was showing— but again the terminology is not perhaps appropriate in the particular case. She made statements such as "Our system of government, which has been copied all over the world, representative government, does not use referenda." My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Gould) pointed out that New Zealand, the country with a system of government most like our own, does use referenda, just as it had an Ombudsman before we did. That is something which we copied from it as well. Of all the countries in the world, New Zealand is the most like us. One can hardly say that our system of government has been copied all over the world when presidential systems are rather more common than parliamentary systems.
In any case I was not quite clear what the right hon. Lady meant when at one point she said— this was the essence of her case— that it was a bad thing that the Labour Government would not resign if their recommendation were defeated by the electorate. That is simply to put two questions instead of one. It is to say "Do you want to be in or out of the Common Market? "and" Do you like the Labour Government? "— if one were to make it an issue of confidence.
At another point the right hon. Lady said that one decision should "not be taken "— I think I quote her correctly—by the back door of a referendum on something else." Yet she wanted us, by the back door of a referendum on the Common Market, to allow the people to

decide whether they like a Labour Government. That is not consistent.
Finally, the right hon. Lady said that she was prepared to consider referenda in some respects— in relation, for example, to a written constitution or something of that character— but did not like this particular referendum. That is what her speech boils down to and I take it that some of her hon. Friends will vote with her upon this consideration.
I turn to the speech of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. This is of great importance. The main issue is of fairness in the conduct of this campaign, because whether we like or dislike referenda, to have a biased referendum will do our political system even more damage than those who dislike referenda think that a referendum will do in itself. There is no doubt that adopting referenda will change the basic system of British politics. I do not see any particular reason for assuming that we would suddenly go mad and have referenda on anything, but I agree with those who say that they cannot necessarily be limited. I would imagine that we should be at least as sensible as the Norwegians, who, in the last 70 years, have had four or five referenda, almost invariably on constitutional subjects. The common sense of this House would lead to that. But if we have referenda it is desirable that they should be fair, and as fairly conducted as we conduct General Elections.
That is where I disagree with paragraph 31 of the White Paper, because that paragraph raises a great constitutional issue. It does not talk, as my right hon. Friend said, about departmental information officers answering questions of the Press, as they do daily. It talks about the setting up of "a special information unit ", presumably of civil servants, to give on behalf of the Government to "the Press "…" factual information "and, above all,
 interpretation of the renegotiated terms and the like.
Whatever the like "is, I would not know.
This is disgraceful. It is dragging civil servants into politics. The equivalent in a General Election campaign would be to set up a unit of civil servants to give factual information and interpretations of the manifesto of one side, the manifesto


of the governing side— the manifesto of the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath), presumably, early in 1974 and that of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, the Member for Huyton (Mr. Wilson), a little later in the same year. This is a disgraceful proposal, which would disgracefully change our political system. Whether one is a pro-Marketeer or an anti-Marketeer, I think that one agrees that we should not involve civil servants in controversial electoral politics.
There is another point of importance which has been mentioned by many people. Before coming to that, perhaps I might say that I do not regard the count of the ballot papers as particularly important. I know that it is a matter of sensitivity to some of the Scottish and Welsh and others, but it is not the widest issue. The most important issues are the total of votes on each side, the majority and what influences those votes. Once they are cast, counting them is not as important as the way in which they are influenced before they are counted. This question is in itself of some importance.
The White Paper says, in the proposed question, "the European Community." Here my right hon. Friend and I disagree. He says that I am wrong, and I think that he is wrong. In the Act which took us into the European Communitiesplural— they were described as "the European Communities "— plural. This is as it should be. I have asked the Library of the House to check. I think that I had better read the letter that I have received because I asked the Library, having got the staff's first opinion, to check again and to produce a second opinion, which they have done in writing. The relevant paragraph of the letter is as follows:
There is an aspiration to continue the process of the merger initiated by the treaty establishing a single Council and Commission to create a single Community in all respects. For practical purposes the interdependence of the three Communities in many fields and the existence of the three common institutions of Council, Commission and Assembly make the concept of ' the European Community ' a realistic one. It has become quite accepted usage in ordinary discussion. However, whatever developments there may be in future it does seem to me that legally the three Communities remain distinct and should, in strict technical correctness, be referred to as such.
The precise point that has been made by my right hon. Friend about the United

Kingdom is that it should be called the United Kingdom because that is legally its title. The "European Communities "is the legal title of all the Communities to which we belong in the treaty which established a single Council and a single Commission.

Mr. Douglas Hurd: Whether or not the description "European Community" or "European Communities" is more accurate, does the hon. Gentleman not agree that either would be an improvement on "Common Market ", which is simply a piece of inaccurate journalese?

Mr. English: I would certainly wish to see the legal title. This is neither fish, flesh nor fowl. It is neither a common title nor a legal one. It is a usage that does not legally exist.
This is rather like the situation of calling the European Assembly— its correct title in the treaties— the European Parliament. The European Parliament has decided to call itself that, even though it had no power to do so. But we need not go into that matter further
I have also consulted two or three Law Officers of the Crown on this issue. They do not understand it either. I should like to know where my right hon. Friend got his information from. He has said to me in public and in private that I am wrong. Fair enough. Will he please justify it and explain in detail, so that lawyers can understand it, where he gets his belief that "European Community "—singular—is the legal title of the institution to which we belong?
I understand that one of my colleagues — the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing)— has tabled a series of Questions today asking where my right hon. Friend got his information from that this particular question was not biased, as other hon. Members say it is biased when it says "stay in ". If I say that the words should be "be in ", my pro-Market friends say that that is biased, too— it implies that we are not in. Perhaps the unbiased way is" hould we be in or out? "Then, if there were two boxes, saying "In" and "Out" instead of "Yes" and "No ", we would have completely catered for the issue. One either votes to be in or votes to be out.
One of the greatest difficulties in making a speech in a limited time is that I do not wish to seem totally critical of my right hon. Friend and the White Paper. The points that I am mentioning are points in respect of which I think there is bias, but I hope it is clear to my right hon. Friend and to the Minister of State, Privy Council Office that the points that I am not mentioning I do not regard as biased. Indeed, I regard them as very reasonable, particularly the comparison of the normal electoral procedure with the procedure on the referendum.
The paragraph in the White Paper on television and radio broadcasting is obscure, in that it does not really say anything. It does not say how many broadcasts there will be, and it does not mention ministerial broadcasts. However, we gather that there has been a considerable argument between the broadcasting organisations and the Government about ministerial broadcasts. The Government reject the view that a ministerial broadcast by the Prime Minister followed by a reply from the Leader of the Opposition should be put in the balance of the total pro-Market broadcasts. They do not like that view. Are they saying that they should be additional to the pro-Market total? I believe that it would be better, if we are to have ministerial broadcasts, to have two pro and anti broadcasts from Ministers and two pro and anti broadcasts by members of the Opposition.
The same issue arises with the White Paper on the terms. Throughout the debate nobody has mentioned the use of the shorthand word "Government" that is used throughout the White Paper. "Government" is a useful word. It is a collective word for a collective situation. However, in this instance, as has been pointed out, Ministers are not collective. I do not know exactly how many Ministers are in the Government. I think that there are nearly 114 Ministers and that there could be 185 if only 95 of them sat in this House. I believe that the number is between 100 and 114 in both Houses.
What we normally mean when we say that the "Government have decided" is that a Minister, or a few, or a sub-committee, or a committee of Ministers, or possibly a majority of the Cabinet, has taken a decision which all of them will collectively follow. We use the short-

hand word "Government" for whatever Minister is advising the Crown on what action must be taken. In this instance that will not arise, because the Government, in the sense of over 100 Ministers, will be saying opposite things.
" The Government ", as a majority, is a collective term, but I agree with the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) that if we have a White Paper from the Government it should present the majority and minority points of view. After all, it will cost a lot of money. According to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, there will be a 16-page full-colour document, which will cost a little over £1 million. That is a little more than he is proposing to give by way of grant to both umbrella organisations put together. It is an addition to the weight of propaganda. If it is unbiased, fair enough. If it represents both the minority and majority views of the Government, fair enough. However, if it is biased it will completely bias the referendum in favour of one particular view. That is a matter of considerable importance.
Next, I turn to the challenge of the Leader of the Opposition when she said that we should discuss at some stage the principle of referenda. I wholeheartedly believe in democracy. That term to me means a majority of the citizens of a country in some way or another—[Interruption] There is no such thing as a perfect democracy. No voting system is perfect. The right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe), the Leader of the Liberal Party, spent most of his time arguing about the count, the least important matter. I suspect that he would disagree with me on the voting system that I happen to like. I would disagree with him on the voting system that he happens to like. Imperfection is a fact of humanity, but when hon. Members laugh at democracy they cannot claim that the Common Market is democratic. They cannot claim that a legislature which is a Council of Ministers sitting in secret is democratic. They cannot claim that a Commission whose two British representatives were appointed by a man who has since lost the confidence of both the country and his party is democratic in any way.
That is my principal objection. I am not an anti-European in the sense that


I dislike all things European. On the contrary, I like the referendum, and that is a European idea. I also like democracy. That side of European history I am prepared to accept. I do not accept the dark side of European history, which believes in a legislature that meets in secret, as happens in Brussels. It is a side that believes in the autocracy and bureaucracy rather than democracy. That is the side that I do not like. At the moment the Common Market's institutions are constructed in that way and not in democratic way.
I know that hon. Members who believe in the Common Market will say that they believe that the Common Market's institutions will become democratic. All I can say to them is that that has been the plea of dictators throughout the ages. General Papadopoulos was always going to introduce a democratic constitution but he never did. That did not happen until somebody got rid of him. However, I am straying from the subject.
In answer to the challenge of the Leader of the Opposition, I believe that the Government are absolutely right to have carried out a promise that was put twice to the electorate. What are those saying who intend to vote against the motion? Are they saying that we should break a promise that we made twice to the electorate in one year, namely, a promise to allow the electorate to decide for itself— a promise to which the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) almost sacrificed a career and sacrificed his seat in the House for a time. [Interruption.] That may be his fault—
Mr. Ivan Lawrence (Burton): Where in the Labour manifesto for the October election is the word "referendum" used?

Mr. English: We said that we would put the issue to the British people. We made it clear that that would be done through a General Election or a referendum. I was present at a speech in Nottingham when my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said that in all probability it would be a referendum. That was made clear and the British people knew that. If the hon. Gentleman did not know, it is a wonder that he was elected for the Opposition.
The main issue is that we made our promise to the electorate on two occasions. It is a promise that the people believe we will carry out. They believe that they will have the chance to vote. It is their decision whether they wish decisions to be taken here or across the road, or far away in Brussels. We are giving them that chance. That is what the issue is about, and the matter must be carried out fairly.

7.18 p.m.

Mr. Julian Amery: The hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) painted with a broad brush and discussed the great issues that underlie the debate. Frankly, I believe that they have been dealt with pretty fairly by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, and notably by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Wood).
I direct my remarks to one issue that is on the surface a procedural matter although it has deep political and constitutional implications. It may be that the Minister of State, Privy Council Office, who has listened so patiently throughout our debate— and I pay tribute to his patience— can deal with it. If he cannot, there is time before the end of the debate for him to enter into the necessary consultations and to give us the appropriate answer.
In the Prime Minister's statement of 23rd January he told us:
 When the outcome of renegotiation is known, the Government will decide upon their own recommendation to the country.
He said that they— the Government— are going to tell us whether they are in favour of staying in or withdrawing. The right hon. Gentleman said that the announcement would
 provide an opportunity for the House to debate the question of substance ".
Presumably that means the question whether we should stay in or go out, as the Government may advise.
Now we know that there are different kinds of debate in the House. There are debates on the Adjournment and there are debates to take note. It has not yet been made clear to my knowledge by the Prime Minister or by the Lord President, or by any other Government spokesman, whether the Government will seek the approval of the House by putting a


motion before it asking the House to endorse the recommendation which they—the Government— recommend. That is to say, before the machinery for setting the referendum into operation and before the Order in Council, as presumably it will be, is moved to start the referendum procedure, the Government will have invited the House to endorse the recommendation that they will make to stay in or go out.
I hope that it is the Government's intention to do this already, and I hope that my remarks are unnecessary. If the Minister can say at once that there is no doubt that this is the Government's intention, I can bring my remarks to a conclusion in a minute or two. I have made one or two inquiries privately, however, and I have not been able to get a clear answer on this issue. I therefore thought it would probably be better to raise it in the House.
It seems an important point politically and constitutionally— politically for two reasons. My hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, North (Mr. James) has put down a motion which is supported by a number of extremely distinguished right hon. and hon. Members, including a former Foreign Secretary, suggesting that there should be a third question— that the country should be asked whether it would prefer the House of Commons to decide the issue. I am inclined to think that to have a third question could promote difficulties could confuse the issue.
But all our people want to know and have a right to know the opinion of their own Members of Parliament and of others in politics, apart from members of the Government, to whom they may from time time look for a lead. I do not see how this can be done unless the Government put a clear motion to the House on which all of us would have to stand up and be counted here. What we say in our constituencies and in the referendum campaign is another matter. It is essential if the country is to be given a true lead and guidance that the Government must not only recommend but must secure endorsement by Parliament of their recommendation.
It is only if there is a clear lead, not only by the Government, and this is particularly true of a divided Government, but backed up by a clear majority

of Parliament, that the country can be asked to form a judgment on what is an immensely complicated issue.
It is also an important point for constitutional reasons. I am against holding a referendum for reasons which have been developed by my right hon. and hon. Friends, but there are degrees of evil in a referendum. If a referendum were to be introduced without the issue in question having previously been endorsed by Parliament, that would be going over the head of Parliament, by-passing Parliament, and that would be the executive appealing to the country in the plebiscitary form which we have seen adopted by dictators in the past. That would be completely wrong.
How do we limit the damage a referendum can do? It seems to me that if the Government not only make their recommendation but get Parliament to endorse it and then put the issue to the country, they will be seeking the country's ratification of a measure of which they and Parliament approve and on which they could argue, albeit speciously, that they have not got a mandate. This would be a much less damaging approach to the problem than if Parliament were bypassed and the appeal were made over the head of Parliament. If the country supports the recommendation of Government and Parliament there is no great problem and no very damaging precedent would have been set. If it rejects our common view I see no alternative but a dissolution of Parliament. Personally I believe the country would accept a clear lead from the Government endorsed by Parliament.
I believe that we should oppose— and I hope that many Labour Members will feel the same— the principle of the referendum. But I would fight not only the principle but the detail of the referendum Bill all the way and by every means possible if it were going to be undertaken over the head of Parliament, by-passing Parliament. But to me it would be a quite different situation if we could have an assurance from the Government that their recommendation would be followed by the moving of a motion seeking the endorsement of Parliament for that recommendation. Therefore, I ask the Minister, if he cannot reply immediately, to ensure that we may be told quite categorically


in the wind-up tonight that it is the Government's intention not only to recommend, not only to allow time for a debate, but to move a motion seeking the approval of Parliament for whatever recommendation they make.

7.25 p.m.

Mr. A. E. P. Duffy: In spite of the criticism that has been directed towards the White Paper in the debate I believe it to be balanced and reasonable. I recognise that pressure will be applied for it to be modified, and I understand that it may not be the last word on how public opinion shall be tested, yet I hope that there will be no change. I think, first, that the Government are right to insist on a national count and upon a single declaration of result. Secondly, I think that the vote concerns the interests of the United Kingdom as a whole and that we should pause before lending ourselves to a divisive operation that would threaten the unity of the United Kingdom. I must say to those who arc protesting otherwise that I believe they are merely pursuing narrow and sectional interests, though I understand those interests.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: Does the hon. Member believe that because Denmark declared its referendum results according to polling stations its unity was threatened?

Mr. Duffy: If the hon. Member had permitted me to proceed, I might have met that point. I am reminded at this stage of a question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Newport (Mr. Hughes) who said that a central count was alien to our traditions. In the Ballot Act 1872 it was provided that all votes cast in an electoral unit— a constituency for parliamentary election, a ward for local elections or a Welsh county for the Welsh referendum on Sunday drinking— were collected at one central point and mixed up before counting. That is where it all started. I acknowledge that the practice was originally intended to preserve secrecy. It is in sharp contrast to Continental procedure. I hope that meets the point raised by the hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. Thomas).
Since the referendum will decide for the United Kingdom as a whole, as one unit,

it must surely be logical to require all the votes to be gathered together and mixed at one count, no matter how enormous.
Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English), I believe that the question which the Government propose to print on the ballot paper is of crucial importance. Here again, I believe the right decision has been made.
As Britain is already a member of the EEC, the issue is surely the plain one of whether we should remain in or come out. Britain's membership is a fact that should properly be reflected in the referendum question. Britain went into Europe on a vote of a democratically elected Parliament. No one can gainsay that. No matter what the objections, that is how it happened.
Some of us were held to account afterwards. We all know of the notorious cases, but we do not know of the many other Members of Parliament who were in conflict with their constituency parties, sometimes in severe conflict, and were faced not merely with censure motions or motions of no confidence but with straight sacking motions. They had to argue their way out of that confrontation with their parties. They had not merely to get out of trouble but to mend fences, restore confidence and get back into a reasonable working relationship with their parties. Some of us know what that is all about, and are in no doubt that the decision was taken by a democratically elected Parliament. I do not know of one hon Member who, having eventually found himself in that position with his party, had not made his position plain to his party well in advance and had not repeated it and, in some cases, having been reselected because of the boundary changes, still made it plain.

Mr. McNamara: I am certain that no one disputes that the decision was taken by a democratically elected Parliament. The question is whether the issue was put before the people who elected that Parliament.

Mr. Duffy: I assure my hon. Friend that for my part— I suspect it is true of all those to whom I have been alluding, necessarily vaguely— I have argued about this since the beginning of the 1960s, and I cannot believe that there is a subject


that has been discussed longer and more thoroughly. That does not necessarily mean that it has been put over, or that it can be put over, but I believe that democracy has done its best in this matter.
When the decision was made in the House it was made properly. No one can now cry "Foul ", because that will not convince the contemporaries and it certainly will not convince the historians. The referendum's onus on the wisdom of that decision should be on those who want to take us out, because those who took us in explained it and in some cases made a stand for which they were held severely to account, and the majority was plain enough.
How easy the referendum must sound thus far, yet how difficult it may prove to be in reality. The arrangements that are being made for all-party umbrella organisations for both pro- and anti-marketeers suggest such a difficulty. Who will be recognised as their national leaders? My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose) said that they may not even be elected. Whom, therefore, do they represent? What is their claim on public money? What is their claim on public time and on television and radio time?
If the major Labour and Conservative Parties do not campaign officially against membership— it seems unlikely that they will do so— the door will be wide open for the Scottish National Party to take the lead in Scotland. In England, the largest party against membership of the EEC looks like being the National Front. What of the composition of the various platforms, not merely the major umbrella organisations? What of the composition of the "Get Britain Out" platform, and what of the place of the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell)? It is clear that much hard work, political finesse and plain luck will be required to adapt successfully such a vast constitutional innovation as a referendum in the present state of British politics.
I suggest, first, that there must be no delay in holding the referendum. Secondly, this is not an issue which any Member of Parliament can evade, however tempting it may be for him to scuttle for cover. Thirdly, there must be no

dogfight over the constitutional place of a referendum in Britain's unwritten constitution. Fourthly, the campaign must be fairly fought. There must be no rabble-rousing.
Here I come back to the various platforms that may be composed over the next few weeks. Members of the Labour Party would be well advised to pay strict regard to the content of their campaign, as well as to the style. The only question that need properly and prudently concern them is: have negotiations been successful; has party policy been fulfilled? If the answer is "Yes ", is there a higher call, a greater duty, on them than to say so and to campaign accordingly? It Members of Parliament do that—I appeal to my colleagues to do it in a low key within their own constituencies— neither feeling nor money need necessarily intrude.
The referendum threatens to throw an intolerable strain on our political system of parliamentary government, on its underlying principle of responsible Government, and on the mechanisms that chiefly relate it to the people— the political parties of which we are all a part.
The Government made a pledge, which I will quote briefly from the Labour Party's February Manifesto:
The Labour Government pledges that within 12 months…we will give the British people the final say, which will be binding on the Government— through the ballot box— on whether we accept the terms and stay in or reject the terms and come out.
I sympathise with those of my colleagues who still uphold the supremacy of Parliament. Some will still insist that Parliament, in any event, has no obligation to accept the result of the referendum, nor indeed the constitutional duty to accept any view outside Parliament. I take the view that the Government have preempted my rights in this matter because I campaigned on the basis of that manifesto, and so, I assume, did most hon. Members. I can understand, therefore, why the Government may feel able to suspend the rights of parliamentarians, but I do not see how any Government can abrogate their responsibility for their own conduct and record. Collective responsibility may become a casualty in this campaign. Our system of Government may survive, but not the obligation of Government to be responsible for their


own actions. Nor do I see how the Government can avoid a recommendation following the closure tonight of the renegotiations They must report and pronounce upon their actions. The Government can hardly avoid entering into a value judgment. At that point there will be a recommendation, no matter how it is presented—formally or otherwise.
I do not see how the Government can avoid resigning if the referendum goes against the Government's recommendation. I hope that I am wrong, but I am trying to proceed logically and I am proceeding in a way that is not tasteful to me. However, I repeat that I do not see how the Government can avoid resigning if the country goes against their recommendation. Indeed, I do not see how any of their supporters can duck the obligation. There is a duty on Government supporters at all times to preserve the Government in office, and that would require an underwriting of the recommendation. That means going out and campaigning for it.
Finally, I turn to the question of responsible government and collective responsibility, and the vehicles by which that responsibility is to be devolved. That function will result in motley alliances. Can members of the various parties join such alliances without risking their public image and their parties' credibility? Can rank-and-file Labour Members mingle with others on "Get Britain Out "public platforms? Can they mingle with Liberals, Conservatives, Communists— not to mention less orthodox political groupings— and not risk bringing their parties into disrepute? Can the situation be taken for granted and, when it is all over, will everything revert to normal, and will the authority of parties be restored to them?
What does the referendum really mean? I suspect that many of us are only now beginning to face the full implications of our commitment to a referendum, just as I suspect the Cabinet became aware of the implications only a few weeks ago.
I conclude by inviting the House to ponder on such questions as the following: does not the Government commitment to the electorate, despite the statement by the Leader of the House, impose

on party followers the duty to divest themselves of parliamentary sovereignty, however briefly? Will that commitment have any validity, and will it make any sense? Will the sovereign people accept the responsibility of their sovereign power and continue to face the consequences? Can the Government abrogate no matter how briefly, their responsibility to govern, and maintain credibility? Will the political parties— all major political parties— maintain their unity under the pressure which will arise in the next few weeks?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): Since taking over the Chair, I have made a quick calculation which shows that if each hon. Member limits his contribution to 10 minutes, every hon. Member who is anxious to take part in this important debate could be accommodated. I hope Members will try to confine themselves to that space of time.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Neil Marten: I thought I understood the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy) to say that he did not approve of his colleagues appearing on platforms with members of different parties. That is a most extraordinary thing to say, especially when one looks at the European Movement and sees that its joint Presidents are the Leaders of the Conservative, Labour and Liberal Parties, and that they attend the same banquet, and speak together from the same table, let alone on the same platform.
I take exception to the fact that both the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe and the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose) imported into the debate what I thought was a slight smear. They mentioned the National Front. If the debate on the Common Market is to be reduced to that level— and incidentally my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford (Mr. Churchill) does the same thing when he constantly shouts "Marxist "— it brings to my mind a recent headline in The Times, "Mao Tse-tung lauds Mr. Heath's policy on Europe ". Are the Maoists one's allies? After all, one of the greatest pro-Marketeers is Sir Oswald Mosley. Is he to be an ally? Surely we can forget that kind of argument and lift the debate to a higher plane.

Mr. James Johnson: The hon. Gentleman is an


old campaigner, but is he saying that because leaders of the major political parties sit at the same table at the Guildhall with the Lord Mayor on a social occasion that compares with the bitter fighting which will ensue on whether we go into the Common Market or come out of it?

Mr. Marten: I gave way to the hon. Gentleman, but certainly in view of the shortness of time available for further debate, I shall not give way again. That occasion was a highly political one. The function at Guildhall was to promote Britain's going into Europe.

Mr. Duffy: The hon. Gentleman made a charge which should have a reply. There are no grounds for the hon. Gentleman's fears, as he will see when he reads my speech. I referred to the National Front in a certain context as being the largest single party in England which will come out against the Common Market.

Mr. Marten: I realise that the hon. Gentleman wants to rub in that point, and he took the opportunity of his intervention to do so. Looking at the situation of the political parties, some 30 per cent, of Conservatives in the country are against, over 50 per cent, of Liberals are against, and an even higher percentage of people in the Labour Party are against the Common Market. Those are debate-able figures. I also understand that a very large majority of people in the trade union movement are against the Common Market.
I have never regarded the Common Market as a party issue. I have ignored the Whip on the subject, and I believe that it should not be a party issue. Therefore, if I now deal with the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), I hope that she will take my points as debating points and treat my remarks in the usual way in which she treats my remarks.
My right hon. Friend said that the Labour Party had no mandate for the referendum because it received only 38 per cent, of the votes at the last election. On that basis we had no mandate to take the country into the Common Market because we did not obtain 50 per cent, of the votes in the 1970 election. I think that point should be made.
Secondly, my right hon. Friend said that we should not regard this debate as decisive on whether we should have a referendum, but pointed out that the vote was a vote on the White Paper. The only time Parliament ever gave its full-hearted consent to going into the Common Market was in the debate on a White Paper. That has been claimed by pro-Marketeers. But tonight is a quite different occasion. We return to the old question of full-hearted consent.
When the then Leader of the Opposition, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath), said that it would be wrong for us to be members of the Common Market without the full-hearted consent of Parliament and the people, if he meant "Parliament" why did he mention people "? It is one of those obscure things. I have never understood it, and I have never heard an explanation. [An HON. MEMBER: "My hon.
Friend has never tried."] I tried many times in Parliament to get the answer. If it is said that the full-hearted consent of Parliament was given, the reply is that in that White Paper vote, which we are not allowed to consider tonight, although there was a majority of 112, only 56 per cent. of the Members voted to go in. That is consent, but it is not full-hearted consent. In the major vote, which was on Second Reading of the European Communities Bill, not even 50 per cent. of the Members were in favour. There was a majority of only eight. I hope that we can forget that sort of argument and get down to the point which I wanted to make concerning the referendum.
To whom does sovereignty belong? I believe that it belongs to the people, who give it to Members of Parliament at election time. Members give it back to the people when their Parliament ends and there is another election. The same applies under the French constitution. Annex B to the White Paper shows that under Article 3 of that constitution the position is exactly the same. Sovereignty in France belongs to the people. They give it to Parliament, which gives it back to them for a referendum. That is what we are doing.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Sidcup did precisely the same thing on Northern Ireland and again in February last year. Our party had a year and a half to run in office. My right hon. Friend


said We are in difficulties. We have a three-day week, and there is a confrontation with the miners." Therefore, he handed back his sovereignty to the people in what was in effect a referendum, asking "Do you want us to carry on with our policy? "That election was a referendum, though it was called a General Election.
The Labour Government were handed sovereignty by the electorate last October on the clear pledge that the Common Market issue would be put to the test at the ballot box in a referendum or a General Election. The Labour Party made a contract with the electors that if it were returned to office it would hold a referendum or an election. It is holding a referendum, and it cannot be blamed for that, because it is honouring a pledge. I hope that it is not the Conservative Party's case that the Labour Party should not honour a pledge which it gave at the election. I often wonder whether we should be the Government now if we had also pledged at the last election to have a referendum.
When Parliament agrees to a referendum it is handing back its sovereignty to the people. After the referendum, the people hand the sovoreignty back to Parliament, which always retains sovereignty over what shall be put to a referendum.
It is no good my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Sir M. Havers) on the Opposition Front Bench making his jokey speeches about the death penalty, because I do not think that Parliament would agree to have a referendum on the death penalty.

Sir Michael Havers: Why not?

Mr. Marten: Because it can always be reversed in the subsequent Parliament.

Sir Michael Havers: So can this.

Mr. Marten: I shall come to that argument, if I have time after all the interruptions.
Under Section 2 of the European Communities Act the electors found that their sovereignty in Parliament had been handed over to the European Community. Few people seem to realise that when we debate draft European legislation the Opposition can no longer move amendments

to it. We can seek to reject it, but we cannot amend it, nor can any back bencher seek to move an amendment, which is our right in our domestic law. To that extent, the electors right to use his Member to move an amendment to legislation has already been taken away.
More than that, we all know that the Common Market will have a directly-elected Parliament. I think that 1978 is the target date. It will one day be a legislative Parliament. That may not happen immediately, but no Parliament will simply twiddle its thumbs. It will move to become the legislative body for the Community. All right. It will be democraticaly elected. But suppose it has a Left-wing Socialist majority— a Labour Member would give the example of a Right wing majority— and it passes legislation affecting this country, which we should have to accept; and then this country elects a Conservative Government to put Conservative policies into practice here. That Government could do nothing to change the legislation passed by the Left-wing dominated European Parliament. That is the ultimate extent to which sovereignty will be surrendered if we stay in the Common Market.
I wish to end now because, with injury time, I have had nearly my 10 minutes. I wish to put some points on the White Paper. First, will the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man have a referendum, too? It is an important question, because they were taken into the Community.
I accept, with regard to the broadcasting, that the BBC and the IBA have an extremely difficult job. I have seen them both, and I believe that they will use their best endeavours to achieve a fair balance. Neither side in the House will regard it as fair, but the media will do their best.
I agree with the comments about the information centre. It will be a treat pity if the civil servants become involved in a deep emotional argument about the Common Market. If they are there, they will be interpreting both sides of the arguments. People will say that their interpretation is wrong. There will be pickets outside with banners saying "No" and "Yes ". It is fundamentally wrong that civil servants should be in such a situation.
I come to the question of the count, opinions on which are a personal matter. I should like to know how my constituents felt about the Common Market, and I should welcome counting by constituencies. It would be a mistake to hide the details from the public, because tellers outside the polling booth would give the result, though perhaps marginally less accurately.
I am against the proposal to have a question—and— answer section in the information document, a sort of Civil Service catechism. It is a silly idea, and I hope that it will not be followed up.
I assume that if we do not have the question-and-answer section we shall be allowed more than 2,000 words— probably 3,000. I hope that we shall not be pressed into writing them too early. I know the difficulties, but if we have to write them too early they may be off target by the time of the referendum.
As an anti-Marketeer, I obviously object to sending round a popular version of the White Paper, because if the Government support entry, as they may, it will make two documents for and one against. That could afterwards be regarded as unfair, if the referendum goes a certain way.
I agree with much that has been said about the question itself. The first half about the Government having announced the results of the renegotiations is redundant. It will be known that the renegotiations have taken place, so why put that in? The question is badly worded. It should be merely,
 Should the United Kingdom be a member of the European Community (Common Market)? 
That is totally unbiased— [Laughter.] I ask for your protection, Mr. Deputy Speaker, against the mirth which that serious statement has occasioned. However. perhaps my hon. Friends will discuss it with me over a drink afterwards.
I think that the Government should consider seriously setting up a Referendum Commission of, say, three wise men — possibly three judges— who are acceptable to everyone, to which complaints about unfairness could be referred. People would feel much happier if they knew that anyone with an immediate complaint, say, against the BBC, could take it up with such a commission and the next day

have the matter put right without the need to go through a vast machinery.
The last matter to which I refer concerns the Norwegian referendum, which I attended. I did not take part in it, in spite of the result. I was merely an observer. The Norwegians had a tremendous programme of education on television and so on. Whereas, at the beginning of the referendum campaign, people said that they did not know what it was about, at the end they did know.
The one matter on which the Norwegian people voted was the one matter on which we shall vote when it comes to it. It is not a question of economics, of agriculture or of alternatives. It is the one matter which the Norwegians decided: did they want the power of their Parliament passing ultimately from Oslo to Brussels. They said "No ". That will be the issue in this referendum: do we want the power, independence and self-government of this country ultimately passed over to Brussels. I hope that the country will say "No ".

8.2 p.m.

Mr. Roderick MacFarquhar: The hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten), with whom I have participated in many late night debates on European secondary legislation, will be suprised to learn that, in principle on this issue, I am in a measure of agreement with him.
My starting point is somewhat different from that of most hon. Members since I have long been a supporter of British participation in the European Community, but I have also been in favour of a referendum on the issue ever since it was first raised by the Macmillan Government in the early 1960s.
I have always favoured a referendum because I believe that the issue of entry into Europe is different in kind from the wide range of issues normally considered by Parliament. What is at stake is the issue of sovereignty, and the failure of Governments of both parties until 1974 to bring this out into the open has only harmed and not helped the cause of Europe.
All hon. Members will agree that Parliament is the supreme power in the land. Historically, its supremacy derives from its twin powers as the supreme judicial court and its right to authorise taxation.
According to Sir Edward Coke,
…the power and jurisdiction of Parliament is so transcendent and absolute that it cannot be confined either for causes or persons, within any bounds.
In the words of a more modern author, Berriedale Keith,
… the sovereignty or omnipotence of Parliament means that Parliament is the supreme power in the State, in the sense that it can make or unmake any law; that the courts will obey its legislation; nor is there any power in the State capable of overriding, curtailing or proscribing its authority.
Let me isolate in the first of those three points the ability of Parliament to unmake any laws. It means that no Parliament can curtail the powers of subsequent Parliaments— an attribute of Parliament that was demonstrated at least as early as the sixteenth century.
This is one of the crucial issues of the whole debate on Britain's entry into Europe.
Already it is being argued— it was argued by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House today, correctly, in my opinion— that for Britain to withdraw from the Community would involve prohibitive economic costs. The right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith), long noted for his opposition to British entry into the EEC, has now decided that Britain has no option but to stay in for that reason. If this is the case after only two years of membership, how much more will it be the case after a decade?
In theory, it may still be possible to withdraw. In practice, the process is virtually irreversible.

Mr. Marten: In defence of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith), who has been a member of the European Assembly for one and a half or two years, the reason for his change of heart has nothing to do with the economy or with the alternatives. It is merely the constitutional matter which concerns him. He takes the view that we should not come out, because if we did we should break a treaty. It is the treaty argument and not the economic argument on which my right hon. and learned Friend sticks.

Mr. MacFarquhar: I accept that, but there are many reasons why people are

coming to the conclusion that we should not withdraw— constitutional, costs— and the longer we stay in the more cogent the arguments will be.
The action of going into the EEC, in practice, has bound and therefore limited the powers of future Parliaments, and the right hon. Member for Bridlington (Mr. Wood) would have been more frank if he had admitted that.
Moreover, the likelihood is that this process wil take place in the future not merely in practice but also in law. The hon. Member for Banbury spoke about the prospective development of a European Parliament, which I personally support. It seems inevitable— it is only honest to ask hon. Members to face this — that the present European Assembly will be transformed into such a Parliament and that at that point it will take over the supreme powers of the British Parliament.
At the moment, it is still possible for the British Parliament to reject any of the myriad draft instruments which we discuss late at night. But at that stage, if there were a European Parliament, it is most unlikely that this House would be able to reject this most important legislation. Parliament, therefore, would no longer be the supreme body.
It is the central thesis of my argument that because Parliament is to be put into a position where it will no longer be able to unmake laws, where it will no longer be the supreme body controlling the destinies of the people of this nation, it is essential that the British people be consulted before this constitutional transformation becomes irreversible. While the people elect their representatives to exercise supreme powers on their behalf, they do not elect them to concede some of those powers in perpetuity to a superior outside body. Therefore, if those powers are to be diminished by entry into the Common Market, the British people must give their consent, and that consent can be given only in a referendum, because only through a referendum can the issue be isolated.
I am well aware that it is historically true that in a few cases Parliaments have, on their own say-so, given up their supreme powers. The Bare Bones Parliament in the seventeenth century conceded powers to Cromwell. However,


that is not an example which is likely to commend itself to hon. Members. Moreover, all the examples are prior to the modern period when the struggle between the Sovereign, the Lords and the House of Commons had not been settled in favour of the House of Commons. It is my contention that, once that struggle was settled in favour of a House of Commons which owed its mandate to the people, it was not legally possible for the House of Commons to give away any of its powers without consulting the people.
I am also aware of the other counter-argument, that hon. Members are elected as representatives to exercise the supreme power of Parliament on behalf of their constituents. In putting forward the case of the Opposition, the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) referred to the speech of Mr. Winston Churchill, as he then was, in the debates of 1910 and 1911. I am sorry that the right hon. Lady did not quote him in full when he put forward the classic argument and rejected the argument for a referendum on 22nd February 1911. He said then that the people
… should choose their representatives and then trust them and give them a fair chance within the limits of their commission for a period which should not be unreasonably prolonged."— [Official Report, 22nd February 1911; Vol. XXI, c. 2035.]
It is precisely my case that the limits of our commission as Members of Parliament is that we can exercise the supreme powers of Parliament but not concede them irreversibly to any other body without prior and specific consultation. A referendum is the unique, final instrument of modern democracy for achieving such consultation. This was clearly recognised by a noble Lord who participated in those debates on the referendum in 1910 and 1911, and it is not good enough for the Leader of the Opposition to attempt to shut up all the skeletons in the cupboard.
Whatever the motives of the speakers who proposed referenda in those early days, there is no question but that they were aware of the constitutional implications and dealt with them fully. The noble Lord stated that the referendum is
 essentially democratic in its character. Its basis is the belief, to which we all, on both sides of the House, give expression in our public utterances, that in the last resort we accept the will of the people, and I am at a loss

to understand why, when it is put forward in this proposal, it should be greeted with so much doubt and, apparently, with so much dismay by those who profess to be the teal representatives of the democracy in this country."— [Official Report, House of Lords 24th November 1910; Vol. VI, c. 946–7.]
That was not a Labour life peer— they did not exist then— nor a Liberal peer, but a member of the Pantheon of the main opposition party today, Lord Curzon.
Why do not hon. Members opposite heed him now? Perhaps he is too flamboyant for this day and age. In that case, I quote a more sober statesman, Mr. Balfour, an ex-leader and Prime Minister of the Conservative Party. He said, in the same debates:
The referendum, at all events, has this enormous advantage that it does isolate one problem from the complex questions connected with keeping a Government in office, and with other measures which it wants to carry out and with other questions of foreign and domestic policy. It asks "—
and this is the important part—
 the country not ' do you say that this or that body of men should hold the reins of office? ' but, ' do you approve of this or that way of dealing with a great question in which you are interested?'."— [Official Report, 21st February 1911; Vol. 21, c. 1758.]
I should particularly like to draw the attention of the right hon. Lady the Member for Finchley to that final section of the quotation, because she attacked the Government on that point.

Mrs. Thatcher: I read all these speeches in all the debates. As I said, there are arguments on both sides. The fact is that until now we have never had a referendum throughout the whole of the United Kingdom, and after this things will never be the same again.

Mr. MacFarquhar: I was not doubting that the right hon. Lady did her own research, but I think that when she does it she ought to bring the important fruits of it to the attention of the House.

Mr. Tim Renton: Mr. Tim Renton (Mid-Sussex) rose—

Mr. MacFarquhar: No.
I want to draw the attention of the House to Mr. Balfour's correct prescription that whatever the result of a referendum it should not be taken as a vote of confidence. That is why I interjected No "when my hon. Friend the Member


for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy) suggested that the Government might resign on this issue.
I should like to suggest further to the right hon. Lady that even the leading speakers against the referendum 65 years ago were not consistent. I raised the example of Churchill earlier. Mr. Asquith, the Prime Minister of the day, indicated that he was against regular referenda, but not against a referendum to solve a major constitutional problem. He said:
 I say quite distinctly that I reserve the question of the appropriateness and the practicability of what is called the referendum as possibly the least objectionable means of untying the knot in some extreme and exceptional constitutional entanglement."— [Official Report, 29th March 1910; Vol. 15, c. 1173.]
Entry into Europe is precisely an "extreme and exceptional constitutional entanglement ", and that is why it demands a referendum. Those who argue that the people are not competent to decide on this issue are arguing not against referenda, but against democracy itself.

8.14 p.m.

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: It was on 22nd January of this year that in answer to a Question that I had put down, the Prime Minister announced, to the great pieasure of my party, his intention to hold a referendum. We are pleased to have the opportunity to give our views to the Government who have asked for them on the various aspects of the White Paper.
We have always believed in the weapon of a referendum. Long before the EEC was even on anyone's agenda we regarded it as the most democratic of tools, and we do not regard it as a fearsome weapon. We do not believe that a normal Parliament will become referendum trigger-happy. There is no evidence to suggest this. Democracies as well respected as Australia, Denmark, Italy, France, Norway, the Republic of Ireland, Switzerland and others have not become trigger-happy. They have limited the use of this ultimate weapon to a few important and outstanding issues.
I am not saying that they have all taken the same definition of the issue. In the same way, this Parliament and the Scottish Parliament may take different definitions, but I do not think we have

to fear that there will be a referendum every month, every year or even every decade.
I have little sympathy with those who say that the public will not understand. After all, the issues at a General Election are much more complex to any conscientious elector. There are many aspects to be taken into account at a General Election, and if electors can that, and if we trust them with taking a big decision then, surely we can trust them when we narrow the issue to one matter only.
To those who have raised the red herring of a referendum on Scottish self-government, I say that my party has always wanted one and would welcome it at any time, on this referendum or on any other occasion. However, as we know that that is not what the House is discussing, I do not propose to say any more about it except that we would welcome a referendum or a General Election on the issue next week or at any time. As the Minister said, we have recently had t General Election. We were only 5 per cent. behind the Labour Party, but we were 5 per cent. ahead of the Conservative Party, so we want another election soon.
My party strongly holds the view that the count should be taken constituency by constituency, and this view appears to be held right across the board in all political parties. The first person to sign my motion on the subject was the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) who asked whether he could sign it. I did not have to pressurise him into doing so. Many people in many parties agree with this view, and I should like to show why it is logical.
There are two basic views of the rôle of a Member of Parliament. He is either a man chosen to make the decisions, and having been chosen for that period he makes them, or, if one believes that a referendum is a sensible and ultimate tool, while he is geographically responsible, in this instance, though not in all, he must consider the views of his constituents who vote on the matter. It is illogical to take the second rôle and to say that it is for the constituent to decide the matter and then to tell the Member of Parliament that he cannot be allowed to know what his constituents say about it.
The hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) referred to this. My party means to find out how people vote. If we are cheated out of the truth about the facts, we shall find out by democratic methods. We shall take sample polls. In some constituencies we shall take total polls. We shall have tellers at the gates. We shall adopt all manner of methods to find out how people voted.
I had a public meeting attended by 2,300 people. I did not share the platform with any other party. The meeting was under the auspices of my party. If we are to find out, how much better it would be if the answers given to us were authoritative. If the votes go against us, we shall have to accept that.

Mr. James Sillars: Is the hon. Lady aware that she might be treading a dangerous path on the constituency count basis and that it is possible to get an overall answer which differs from that, constituency by constituency, in the House?

Mrs. Ewing: I understand the pitfalls and I have given them careful thought. I have a geographical responsibility for my electorate and I would like to think I knew their wishes. If we are to give them the vote it seems pointless if I do not know their wishes. I will take what is coming to me after that by way of any pitfalls or difficulties.
The White Paper seems to be totally illogical. It cannot have been framed by a member of the legal profession. It says in the pre face
… advantage be taken of procedures and safeguards which long experience has shown to be effective and which are familiar to the voters.
That is normal United Kingdom thinking for elections. Then it refers to a central count. A central count is not in accordance with the precedents of other countries, listed at the back of the White Paper. In Australia it was each State, in Italy it was by way of each commune, in New Zealand it was each electoral district, in Switzerland it was at canton level, in the United States of America it was by counties and cities, in Denmark it was each polling station, in France, each département, in Norway and the Republic of Ireland by constituencies.
All the countries which are accustomed to referenda have found that this is the practical way to do it. The White Paper says that it is widely accepted that it should be done by a central count. It certainly will not have "the widest acceptance "in Scotland where if the truth is kept from the people they will be resentful. Whatever their views on the issues they will feel that a smokescreen has been put up. The Secretary of State for Industry has publicly agreed with this view. He is on record as saying that if we try to hoodwink the people of Scotland they will be angry and turn against us. The Government would find themselves a laughing stock. I think it is ill-advised to persist with a central count. I ask the Government to think again.
I refer to an article in The Scotsman which says that there could
 only be one reason why the Government should want to count votes on a United Kingdom basis, because it fears that the results tabulated constituency by constituency or by county would give ammunition to the Nationalists.
If members of my party were political Machiavellis we would say, "This is a marvellous grievance, let us continue with the central count."
If Scotland were against and England were for, that would be good ammunition. I am speaking against the interests of my party.
In 1972 a majority of Scottish Members of Parliament voted against entry to the Common Market. Scotland was included with the rest. That has caused resentment, in Scotland, rightly or wrongly. To try to conceal the results in a central count would cause similar resentment. We would be removing democratic rights if we were to do that.
I greatly value my right of scrutiny in the present electoral system. I am sure that all hon. Members do. They send every available scrutineer to every count. They watch the sealing, the counting and the opening of the boxes. When the results are announced everyone is fairly sure that it is as accurate as possible. However, even then mistakes are made. I have a vulnerable majority of 367. It was found that 1,000 of my votes were in a file with my opponent's name on the top paper. However, we were able to clear that up, and I am here today.
We must take the right of scrutiny seriously. These rules and regulations were hammered out over a long period to make certain that, when the result is declared, it is correct. If there is to be a central count I shall sit on top of my boxes in the guard's van until they reach the counting centre, whether it be Westminster Hall or Earls Court. We cannot have a situation where Members of Parliament cannot scrutinise. How could we afford five days to do the count? Think of the delay. The worst result is that from the Outer Isles, the Shetland Islands, because of the distance. Even those results are announced before the Sabbath day. They are announced on a Saturday. Imagine having to wait five days when we could virtually have the result the next day. It does not seem to be sensible.

Mr. Harry Ewing: Leaving aside the rather glorious picture of the hon. Lady in the guard's van, the hon. Lady has said that she wanted a separate Scottish count because she believes that Scotland could stay out of the Common Market if England decided to stay in. Is this not contrary to the view that the hon. Lady expressed earlier in her political career, when she is on record as saying that England in the Market meant Scotland in the Market? Has the hon. Lady changed her views?

Mrs. Ewing: This is going back many years, to 1967. I said that with such a high percentage of our exports going to England, obviously if England were in then Scotland should be. I hope that people in England will vote against it. Since I said that in 1967 a certain black gold has been discovered in the Scottish sector of the North Sea off the Shetland coast—[Interruption.] That is still part of Scotland. That slightly alters the situation. Scotland has a total option irrespective of England's choice. That is my belief shared by the speakers in many recent television discussions and by no less an august personage than Sir Christopher Soames. Scotland's position is entirely different from England's because of our self-sufficiency in so many spheres.
Who are the independent advisers? I have had an answer to one of my questions

about the Post Office counters. How many ballot boxes would have to go missing before it could be said that the count was invalid? In what circumstances would a recount be granted? What is the margin of error? This is not a dead issue, because there will be opinion polls between now and the date of the referendum, which I hope will be an early one. Samples will be taken. I urge the Government to think again about a central count. I identify myself with the questions posed by the hon. Member for Banbury and his remarks on the framing of the question. The use of the word "stay" suggests status quo, which gives an unfair advantage to one side. The preamble certainly gives an unfair advantage to one side. My simple suggestion for a question would be:
Common Market: In or out? 
The NOP recently conducted a poll which proved that the question can be varied in such a way as to bring about a difference of 8·6 per cent. Thus, unless there is an overwhelming result the framing of the question is of importance.
I believe that it is wrong for the Government to issue two documents to the electors. There should be separate Scottish information in so far as it is different, as it is in regard to exports and where those exports are increasing— which is not in the EEC. The Scottish situation is different as it affects energy, fishing and agriculture. Will there be any additional and separate information about Scotland?
I am concerned about the fact that the European Movement is to give money to the Conservative Party in this campaign. Will that come under the financial limits? A referendum could properly have been held on the EEC issue quite irrespective of whether the Government were renegotiating. The wording at the beginning of the White Paper seems to suggest that the information to be given should not be limited to renegotiation. In this connection I align myself with the remarks of the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher). The White Paper says:
 a referendum would be held on whether the United Kingdom should continue as a member of the European Community or should withdraw.
The White Paper is not framed in a way which asks whether we should approve the renegotiated terms. If


information is to be sent out in documentary form it will be necessary for it to include not only what has been accomplished in the renegotiation but also information about the merits and demerits of the Market. I have in mind such things as what it has cost us up to now and how we have benefited. What promises were made about the balance of payments and what is the sordid situation now? What was promised about the free movement of labour and how has it worked out, for example, in Germany where all those guest workers are living in rather dubious circumstances.
We should know what was promised about growth rates and what the facts are now. We should be told the same about jobs and wages. Shall we be told about the 40 per cent. increase in unemployment in the EEC? While it is said that prices are rising everywhere, will it be pointed out that they did not go up by the same amount in Norway?
If there is to be a document, and there may be something to be said for no document, is it to be about the renegotiation or will it include merits and demerits? Will it say that renegotiation did not cover the vital area of fishing? If so, will it say why not? The sovereignty of Parliament is not the law of Scotland. The sovereignty of the people is above the sovereignty of Parliament according to the Scots constitutional law.
On 23rd January the Prime Minister promised that he would consult the Lord Advocate about this and advise me. Has he done so yet? If the Lord Advocate is not present, perhaps he can write me a note. This is a different situation and it is worth thinking about how it fits into the referendum situation.
In case anyone is interested in how my party will vote tonight, I can tell the House that we so strongly support the idea of a referendum that we shall go into the Lobby to support the Government. That is a basic plank in our policy, and it always will be. We feel very strongly about the count, however, and if an attempt is made to prevent the people of Scotland from getting access to all the information available within a democratic framework, we shall have to review our position when the necessary legislation comes before the House.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. William Hamilton: I shall not follow the remarks of the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mrs. Ewing) too closely. I do not mind very much whether the count is taken on a constituency basis, a county, or a district basis. I shall take what comes. My constituents at the last election and at every election during the last 10 years knew exactly where I stood on Europe, and nothing has happened during that decade to persuade me to change my mind.
What we are discussing tonight was, if I may say so without doing too much damage to her reputation, put admirably by the right hon. Lady the Leader of the Opposition. We are using this instrument to keep my party united— that and nothing else. That is the only reason for it. That is the only reason for putting this proposition in our election manifesto. I said so at the last election. I made it very clear that I was against the referendum in principle. I think it is a constitutional outrage. I think parliamentary democracy will never be the same again.
It was very idle and almost irresponsible for the Prime Minister to say, a few weeks ago, that it would be used only in connection with this kind of matter. It is not for him to say that. Once the principle has been accepted, other Governments will eventually take over, and other Prime Ministers and other administrations will decide, if it is to their advantage, to use a referendum on this, that or the other issue.
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, when he opened the debate, talked about the nuts and bolts of this issue. I wonder whether there have not been rather more nuts than bolts. Paragraph 31 of the document states:
 It is to be expected that there will be a substantial additional flow of requests to the Government for factual information…
But the Government will not be the Government. There will be two sets, if not three sets, of Government advisers in this matter. Will someone be able to telephone and say "May I please have the interpretation of the Secretary of State for Industry or the Secretary of State for the Home Department?" There will be at least two interpretations from the Government and, irrespective of what the civil servants say, the interpretation


of the facts by the civil servants will be different, as there have been different interpretations in this House during the last few months. Different interpretations have been put on the same figures by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and the Secretary of State for Industry. The public will be subject to different interpretations of the same facts by different Ministers. The public will not be sure of the facts, and still less sure of their interpretation when they ring up this mysterious office.
The right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) asked whether, after the renegotiations that are to be completed— one hopes tonight— in Dublin by the Prime Minister, a part of the Government— I do not know which part — will come forward with a recommendation on the question whether or not the people should accept that we have reached a satisfactory renegotiation posture.
The right hon. Gentleman asked whether the Government recommendation would be put before the House for debate. My recollection may be wrong, but I think I am right in saying— I hope I am not giving away party secrets— that the Prime Minister, at one of our party meetings, gave a specific undertaking that a recommendation would be put before the House on the results of the renegotiated terms and the House would have a vote. I presume that it would be a free vote, because the Prime Minister has already said that Ministers would have a free vote. Therefore, I shall claim no less rights than any Minister.
The Government will make a recommendation, and let us assume that that recommendation is approved by the House and that the question then framed is "Your sovereign Parliament, elected at the last election, has decided that the Government, who were elected last October, have reached a satisfactory renegotiated position. We therefore recommend to you that we should stay in the Common Market." People will be asked to answer "Yes" or "No".
If the people were to say "No ", there is no shadow of doubt but that the Government could not possibly survive, or, if they did, they would lose all credibility. This institution, too, would lose credibility, because the people would rightly say "What is the use of engaging in this

kind of charade and then, when we reject their advice, they still stay put? "
The House can never be the same again after such an exercise, which is to be done for the sake of preserving a facade of unity in a political party. I speak for my party only— in fact, I do not even speak for my party. I speak for myself. It is well known throughout the country and in my party that this is a device for trying to keep us together. It may well be laudable. There is nothing wrong with that. But let us not pretend it is otherwise. Let us not pretend to the people that it is to protect their sovereignty.
" Sovereignty "is a meaningless word. Nobody ever defined it. When my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary went to Brussels and asked "What do you mean by political union?" nobody could answer. Nobody has yet defined for me what "sovereignty" means.
To pretend that this country, in or out of the Market— especially out— could continue on its own is nonsense. My right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) knows better than anybody that for us to pretend that we have anywhere else to go, if we get out. is blatant nonsense and a deception of the people.
We are not discussing the merits of the question whether we stay in or get out. We are discussing the merits of this constitutional device, this constitutional piece of opportunism.
I greatly regret that this debate is taking place at all. I greatly regret the White Paper. It bears all the evidence of a hotchpotch of ideas flung together, flung at us and flung at the people.
At my constituency Labour Party meeting last Sunday I argued that there should be another question on the paper. This proposition has been made more than once in the House. People should have the right to say "We prefer to leave this issue to the judgment of those whom we elected last October." That is what we are elected for. We are elected not for where we stand on a particular issue but on a whole range of principles and a philosophy. We are judged on that periodically in a General Election.
None of the other countries that have referenda has a Government superior to


ours. I have travelled a good deal since I became a Member of the House and I have not seen a better form of Government anywhere than we have.

Mr. Whitehead: I agree with much of what my hon. Friend says. However, does he not agree that at the last General Election we were returned to power on the basis that we would have a referendum— not that we would have a referendum about having a referendum?

Mr. Hamilton: We did not say any such thing.

Mr. Whitehead: We did.

Mr. Hamilton: We never mentioned a referendum. The word "referendum" was never used. We said that we would consult the people through the ballot box. If we were now going to the country at a General Election I should not be making the kind of speech I am now making. I agree that the people should be consulted in a General Election but not in a referendum. I said at the last election that I did not believe— and I do not believe— in referenda. I believe in the sovereignty of Parliament. This is a negation of that principle.

8.42 p.m.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: I will not follow the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) in all his arguments on constitutional theory. Suffice it to say that I accept the Scottish principle of the sovereignty of the people. Our position about a referendum is that we as elected Members are handing back a decision to the electors on a specific constitutional issue.
It is possible to distinguish between a referendum in relation to amending the constitution and other types of possible referendum issues. We are in the unfortunate position of not having a written constitution. The sooner that is put right the better in terms of the devolution of power within the United Kingdom. When we have a written constitution, it will be possible to distinguish between issues which will amend the constitution and issues of general domestic and public policy.
This distinction is made in most Western European democracies which have the referendum as part of their consultation process with the electorate. This

is a view which my party upholds very strongly.
As has already been said today, we are to have a major second referendum in Wales this year on the question of the opening or closing of public houses on Sundays. It has been suggested that a saving in public money might result if both were held on the same day— not on a Sunday, of course— with the added stipulation that those who voted "Yes" in one would have to vote "No "in the other.

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: Would the hon. Gentleman agree with a referendum on devolution?

Mr. Thomas: Yes. I am coming to that very point. The Government have argued that the referendum principle is appropriate only to constitutional changes in the external relations of the United Kingdom. I argue strongly in favour of having a referendum on the internal constitutional relations of the United Kingdom. In these days, on the issues of EEC membership and devolution we have an incredible crossing of party divisions. An EEC Commissioner who is a member of the Conservative Party— I believe that he is still a member— came to Wales and advocated devolution only the day after the party's spokesman in the House on Welsh affairs condemned it in a speech at Kingston-upon-Thames— an ideal location for a speech on the question of devolution, one would have thought.
Clearly the devolution issue is an obvious candidate for a referendum. I believe strongly that there should have been a referendum on the question of internal constitutional changes in the United Kingdom following the publication of the Kilbrandon Report. I put it to the Government— not in this context, but in a future context— that if they have the faith that they say they have in their constitutional proposals and their acceptability they should seek to put those proposals to a popular test.
I turn now to the details of the EEC White Paper. I have tried to read it as an objective document— I always try to read White Papers objectively— but I conclude that this document has been ghost written by the Government on behalf of the European Movement. The arguments in this document are incredibly similar to an article which appeared in


New Europe recently on the lessons for Britain of the Irish, Norwegian and Danish referenda. Section 4 of the White Paper on Government information activities is a toned down version of the proposals put forward in that article for a fully blown Government propaganda machine— what it calls an educational exercise. But the toning down has not been done well enough. The proposal in paragraph 31 for a special information unit of civil servants to be concerned with so-called "interpretation "of the renegotiation terms is a smaller scale model of what the European movement has proposed.
The phrasing of the question on the ballot paper coincides incredibly with the European Movement's authorised version of the question, which is:
 Do you approve the terms now negotiated (or recommended) by the Government (or Parliament) for continued British membership of the European Community? 
The White Paper has split up the sentence and given us a short preamble, but it has given a far more heavily loaded verb.

Mr. Hurd: I assure the hon. Gentleman that those of us who are thinking of campaigning on the opposite side from himself are disappointed with the White Paper in this respect. We think it is wrong that the information unit should wait for questions to come to it. Such is the appetite for objective information on the part of the public, we think that the Government ought to take the initiative in circulating the facts as opposed to the arguments put forward by the two sides.

Mr. Thomas: The hon. Gentleman confirms my view entirely. I am not surprised that he is disappointed that the whole of the Government's propaganda machine is not geared up for this exercise.
The Irish, Norwegian and Danish questions were more neutral in the way that they were structured.

Mr. John Roper: Is it not the case that in the other countries the form of the question depended upon alterations to their constitutions, which does not apply in the United Kingdom?

Mr. Thomas: That is the point. The great advantage of having a written

constitution is that one can tie up amendments to the constitution in a neutral way, not the emotive way in which it will be phrased in this question. I still believe that, despite the fact that it is not convenient to link it to a constitutional amendment, it is possible to make the question far more objective. I believe that that must be done.
It is on the question of the control of expenditure that the European Movement's arguments have most obviously been accepted by the Government. The European Movement has argued that there should be no limitation on spending by campaigning groups and that at the same time there should be no Government financing of those groups. That was clearly aimed to give the multinational companies, which are pouring money into the European Movement, a free hand. These sources of funds enabled them to appoint an anti-Socialist former Labour Member of Parliament as their Welsh organiser— a part-time job for which he is getting a fat salary.
At the same time the European Movement wants to ensure that there will be no public funds available for a balanced projection of the arguments. It wants to have the same walk-over in terms of financial resources in the campaign as it had in Ireland where the pro-Market funding outpaced the anti Market funding by 10 to one.
In my view, there must be control of spending exercised in the same way as at parliamentary elections with a register kept of all campaigning organisations and returns made for the amount spent by each organisation in each constituency. There should be a similar limitation on central funds for a United Kingdom-wide campaign. I believe that such a limitation is long overdue at general elections. It is high time that Aims of Industry had to make election returns, or, for that matter, my own union.
The devising of effective regulations for limiting spending is more important than subventions from public funds for campaigning. I believe that we must have both. In Norway, for example, the equivalent of £10 million was allocated both to political parties according to parliamentary strength and to pro- and anti-campaign organisations without


specific conditions. This is an example which the Government ought to follow.
Controls similar to these on funding for campaigning must also be extended to broadcasting. The balance of current affairs programming is, of course, a matter for the broadcasting authorities, but the BBC and the IBA can, I hope, be relied upon to be fairer in their treatment of reporters and participants in programmes than the Financial Times.
However, I am concerned about the way in which political broadcasts, the referendum equivalent of General Election party-politicals, are to be organised. Paragraph 33 of the White Paper is silent about control of these. The European Movement wants these broadcasts done as party-political broadcasts for a General Election, saying that
 It would be left to each political party to determine whether and how much weight they would give in their political party broadcasts "—

Mr. Roper: As an officer of the European Movement. I am most interested in the hon. Gentleman's remarks. If he is referring to an article written in a personal capacity by the director of the European Movement, the hon. Gentleman is referring to the director's views, which are not necessarily those of the movement.

Mr. Thomas: I am grateful for that intervention. Does the hon. Gentleman, therefore, take the view that what appears in the official journal of this movement is not the official policy of the movement, even when it appears under the director's name?

Mr. Roper: Articles in New Europe are written under the authority of the author, and that is made clear.

Mr. Thomas: That was clearly not specified in the article concerned.
However, perhaps I may continue to quote from this enlightening article which is obviously creating much interest. It continues:
 It would be left to each political party to determine whether and how much weight they would give in their political party broadcasts to the minority views within their own parties.
That is yet another attempt by the director of the European Movement, who represents no one or nothing but his

personal capacity, but in that capacity he is clearly suggesting that there should be a limitation to the official party points of view. This is another attempt to load the dice, based as it is on what I hope will be a mistaken assumption about the Labour Party— that each British party will campaign for a "Yes" vote.
It is important that broadcasting time should be allocated not to political parties but to pro-Market and anti-Market organisations. Plaid Cymru has had bitter experience of the carve up of time in relation to political broadcasts by the self-styled all-party committee. My party recently had to take on the broadcasting authorities in the High Court to get a broadcast out at the time scheduled. I do not consider the so-called all-party committee competent or fair to allocate the campaign time. I press the Government to set up a representative ad hoccommittee of the campaigning groups and broadcasting authorities to supervise referendum broadcasts. Nothing is said in the White Paper on that matter, but I hope that something can be stated clearly upon it.
Finally, I turn briefly to the question, of the counting of the votes and the announcement of the result. I find what is not stated in paragraphs 18 to 23 more. interesting than the logic of a so-called "national count ". The United Kingdom, as we have heard, is the only European democracy which proposes to count referendum votes centrally. We have heard references to Denmark, Norway and Ireland, and even centralised France which declares results by départment.
Only the United Kingdom Government have developed the perverted logic that because it is a United Kingdom poll, the constituency is the whole of the United Kingdom. I do not accept the analogy of the Lord President when talking of the whole of the United Kingdom as a constituency. The White Paper says that to announce the result in this way will secure its widest acceptance by the British people. I again quote the director of the European Movement, in his personal capacity:
Such a procedure would avoid placing an onus upon most individual Members of Parliament to abide by their own constituency result.
I find this view a negation of representative Government. Most of us, as Members of Parliament, spend most of


our time trying to find out what our constituents are thinking on a broad range of issues, and yet on a major issue of this kind the Government are deliberately trying to prevent those views from becoming known. If the Government are so keen to get pro-Market Labour Members off the hook, if that is their intention, what is wrong with a county count? Or does the acceptance of the British people imply that the views of the individual constituent countries of the union should not be known?
Does the argument run like this? It the vote were close, as it was in Norway where there was a relatively small "No" majority, would the South-East of England be up in arms because Scotland, Wales and Northern England had saved them from themselves and kept them out of the Common Market? We in Wales have had to put up with Tory Governments inflicted upon us against out political views by the South-East for many years. To go through the mammoth, marathon exercise of a United Kingdom count in an effort:to mask genuine social and political differences between various regions and countries cannot be justified on the standard of argument that we have heard so far from the Leader of the House.
It is a matter of sadness that the right hon. Gentleman, in his other capacity, is responsible for devolution. If it is that kind of commitment that we have from the Government for devolution, if the deliberate masking of the views of Scotland, Wales and the English regions is to be carried out by the same Minister, I have the gravest doubts about the Government's real commitment to devolution.
Devolution is not an issue, it is a dimension of policy. If on major policy issues of this kind we are not to have real devolution and real representation of the views in Scotland and Wales, and the regions of England, the whole exercise must be severely in doubt. If it were done on a localised count and a United Kingdom tally we would have the results by midday the following day. Instead of that, we are to go through the charade of transporting ballot boxes through the night, no doubt in Securicor vans. I expect that they will be watched over by Alsatian guard dogs. They will be

transported to an unknown destination in central London where for five days and five nights 5,000 counters and scrutineers will be engaged in the count.

Mr. Lee: What about the recount?

Mr. Thomas: If there is a recount, it will be 10 days and 10 nights. Clearly, the referendum will have to be held on Monday so that nobody will have to be paid overtime. At the end of the five days there will be puffs of white smoke, unless we have a recount. However, we shall still know the Welsh result because the ballot papers from Wales will be bilingual. Our independent scrutineers will be able to tally them. If we do not have official results from constituencies and from the regions, and from Wales and Scotland, there will be unofficial results and alternative forms of referenda by canvassing or putting in tellers. Let the Government come clean.
I suppose that I am arguing against myself in that I want to see this great centralised count take place as the last great absurdity of the over-centralisation of United Kingdom Government. Perhaps I should be urging the Government to carry on with their plans.
Finally, the Referendum Bill must be shown to be a substantial improvement on the White Paper. It must contain safeguards on the major issues that I have tried to indicate before we as a party can commit our support to it. Although we believe in the principle of the referendum, unless the referendum secures a clear statement on the views of the people of Wales we shall not be able to support it.

8.58 p.m.

Mr. Ronald Brown: I do not wish to take up the remarks of the hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. Thomas). His remarks about Southern England always organising things for him did not ring a bell with me. We in London have been carrying a lot of the burden for a very long time.
Having heard most of the contributions in this debate, I am bound to say that I am not persuaded one bit that the Government's decision to go ahead with this referendum device will add to our parliamentary system or will be of any great value to the British people. It is


true that the word "referendum" never passed officially from Labour Party spokesmen until 23rd January. Even the Queen's Speech did not contain the word "referendum ". It was only as recently as 23rd January that the word "referendum" was used as a commitment for the Labour Party.
Like many of my hon. Friends, I made a commitment in October that if such a pledge were made in our manifesto we should proceed by way of the ballot box. I assumed that we were pledged to a General Election. That is what we always understood the use of the ballot box to mean in this country. I used that term then and I use it today. If we want to know the views of the people we should have a General Election so that we can hear what they have to say.
It is extremely dangerous to try to transplant or superimpose on one's own system a more attractive feature from someone else's system. My mind goes back to the Industrial Relations Act. I heard my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) talking in those days about the absurdity of taking certain things from other people's ideas. The Industrial Relations Act was exactly the sort of thing in which various persons compiled what they regarded as attractive items from various systems into one measure, and it turned out to be a disaster. If, with the referendum, we try to weld to our parliamentary system ideas based on an entirely different philosophy, we shall end in complete disaster.
My argument is reinforced by Annex B of the White Paper, in which the Government have picked out various countries that use a form of referendum. As has been pointed out, these countries have written constitutions and have accepted referenda as part of those constitutions. With them it is an on-going process, not an isolated use of the system, to be disposed of after being used once. The people of those countries understand referenda to be part of their systems. It is therefore irrelevant to quote the practice of these other countries in support of the use of a referendum in Britain. In Australia, for example, people are compelled to vote, and that makes comparison very difficult.
I believe that Annex B shows just how fundamental is the difference between the

White Paper proposals for Britain and the practice in foreign countries. The Government are not proposing to retain the referendum for any further use after this issue has been decided. I am interested to know why. If it is a valuable device, surely it should be retained. I am open to being persuaded that it is valuable, and I do not understand how the Government, having decided that they want to use it once, should then want to get rid of it as fast as possible. The Government, as I understand it, are saying that they want to hear the voice of the people and they want to be bound by that voice. If that is so, why not use this machinery for other issues? The public have many ideas about which issues are important, and it is something of an intellectual arrogance to say that we in Parliament should decide that there is only one subject on which we want to hear people's views and be bound by them, and that this situation should not apply to other matters that they, the people. regard as of paramount importance.
Tortuous arguments have been adduced in favour of limiting consultation to this one issue, and that issue has been chosen by the Government. The people outside Parliament, however, have issues that they regard as important, and they have been demanding referenda for years. They have as much right to have their favourite issues put to a referendum as has anybody else. It is an odd form of democracy that dismisses the views of large sections of the population who wish to test opinions on subjects they regard as of paramount importance but which insists that they should answer only the question that we think should be put to them.
Paragraph 26 of the White Paper presents an interesting situation. First, the Government will issue, along with all the other advertising material for Omo, and so forth, a "pop" version of the document. In addition, they will issue an explanatory memorandum to describe how the "pop" version of the document is to be read. Having done that, they will send out another document of 4,000 words—2,000 from one side and 2,000 from the other. Then there will be some questions, and two sets of answers. The people will then have to sit down and study all the paper work.

Mr. Jay: That is exactly what is done in elections.

Mr. Brown: I am glad that my right hon. Friend intervened. I have here an article written by him which will illustrate how difficult it is to interpret what is written. Under the headline "Common Market: Why should we come out, by the right hon. Douglas Jay M.P." is written:
 It is now clear that no substantial concessions are going to be made by the Common Market countries in the ' renegotiation ' which the Labour Government has rightly launched.".
I suppose one could call that an extension of the truth, but I would call it an utter untruth. It has no relevance to the facts. Yet that article has gone out under the name of my right hon. Friend. People are reading it and saying that it is written by the right hon. Douglas Jay, not by Mr. Douglas Jay, that friendly man— and they believe that what he says is right. When my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister comes back from Dublin he will tell us what he thinks about it. I do not believe that he will come back with that story. I do not know whether my right hon. Friend hopes, by writing another article, to give an informed version of what he did not know before. Perhaps that is one way of making a living.
I shall quote one more piece from my right hon. Friend. He said that
 The only tolerable solution for Britain and the Labour movement now is to return to sanity and rejoin the EFTA group of Social Democratic countries.
I looked to see what Governments were in power in the EFTA countries. In Portugal there is an armed forces Government of the Left in a state of flux. The troops have been out tonight. In Switzerland there is a four-party coalition, including Radical Democrats, Christian Democrats, the Swiss People's Party and Social Democrats. Finland is an associate member and it has a Government consisting of four political parties. Of the seven EFTA nations there are three with Social Democratic Governments.
My right hon. Friend wrote something that is patently not true. There is not a Social Democratic EFTA, and there never has been. I am not taking issue with my right hon. Friend on it. He is entitled to write what he likes. All I am saying is

how difficult it is for someone reading all the papers to try to decide what is fact and what is fiction. I am not challenging my right hon. Friend's right to print what he likes, but it is difficult for people to understand the written word in these terms. I should like to be satisfied that the voters will be able to clarify their minds on these issues.
We shall have to undergo this procedure in a hurry. Everything will be rushed. From the time that the Prime Minister arrives home from the summit everything will go into top gear. People will have to clear their minds by June, and then they will have to take a decision. It is almost impossible to expect those people to take such a momentous decision within such a short space of time. I appreciate that in the time scale that is set the decision must be taken quickly, but one cannot set up an Aunty Sally just to knock it down.
I do not believe that the people of Great Britain are being given a fair chance even if they are in favour of the system. It would have been better if we could have taken the decision in a much more leasurely fashion, so that people could have arrived at an understanding of the issues.
Much fun has been made about the idea of an information centre, but no alternative was advanced by the hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. Thomas). Many hon. Gentleman have jeered at the idea, but nobody has come up with any other suggestion. We should be told what is the right way to inform the population within so short a time.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: I proposed a subvention from public funds, so that information could be distributed by the parties, whether pro or anti, indirectly rather than directly from a Government agency.

Mr. Brown: But how are people to assess the information which will come to them within so short a space of time? They have only until June.
I find it impossible to accept the arguments for attaching a referendum system to our parliamentary system. If we want to discover what people are thinking, we should go through the time-honoured procedure of going to the people via a General Election and letting the people have their say. We must consider whether


this new concept within the system of government will be to the nation's benefit. I have come to the conclusion that if we agree to the referendum proposal it will not add much to our democracy.

9.13 p.m.

Mr. Paul Channon: I am sure that many hon. Members will agree with the conclusion reached by the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown). Many hon. Members, particularly Labour Members, have obviously concluded that at present it is wrong to hold a referendum. I am against a referendum in principle, and I am against a referendum on this particular issue. It is possible to run a democracy and also to have a system of referenda — examples have been given in the White Paper— but we do not have such a system in this country.
I agree with the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) that once we have gone down the referenda road it will not be the end of the idea. It will have a profound effect on our system of parliamentary government. Are we saying that there are some issues so important that even when Parliament has decided by a majority to support that issue, nevertheless Parliament cannot be trusted to come to the right decision? If that is what we are saying, it is the greatest breach of the traditions and practices in the House of Commons— far greater than the issue of the Common Market.
I also object to the view that it is important that we should have a referendum on this special issue. There have been other crucial issues on which the House has decided in this century. We decided to go into the last war. That was an issue of life and death for this country. No one could have said that it was not as crucial as the Common Market issue.

Mr. David Lambie: There should have been a referendum then.

Mr. Channon: One can imagine how we should have been stifled by inability to come to a decision. It would have been a ridiculous situation.
What will be the practical result of the referendum? Will it be binding? The Leader of the House says, rightly in law,

that it is not binding, but he says on behalf of the Government that they will accept the result of the referendum. If the decision is made by one vote, it will bind their future conduct.
What are individual hon. Members expected to do? I believe that it is crucial to this country to remain a member of the European Communities, though other views are passionately and sincerely held in the House. Is it seriously suggested that, against all my convictions and all that I have argued in favour of membership at General Election after General Election ever since I have been a Member, I should solemnly vote to take us out after the referendum? The proposition is ridiculous.
Hon. Members are asked to surrender what has been our prime responsibility and duty, which is to vote for what we believe is in the interests of the country.

Dr. M. S. Miller: I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman and to many other hon. Members making this point. Is he suggesting that our system is perfect, and that we cannot have any other form of attempting to get the people to express their democratic voice?

Mr. Channon: Every system can be improved, but I still believe that compared with the parliamentary and other systems in other countries ours is the best available. I do not wish to tinker with it in a way that I believe will be damaging to our parliamentary democracy.
I come to the second main point, raised by the hon. Member for Fife, Central, and, I think, by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy), of the Government's position when the referendum is over. If they recommend that we should stay in the Common Market and that recommendation is overturned in a referendum, how can anyone believe that it would be credible for them to remain in office? How could it be, when the main plank of their foreign policy, on which a great deal of their economic policy will depend, has been taken away? They would then have to introduce crucial legislation which they had said they did not believe in. That would be a constitutional outrage, and there is a danger of its happening.
Secondly, even if the Government resigned, what is the alternative? My right hon. Friends are also pledged to stay in the Common Market. Therefore, we should have the situation described by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), a few years ago, of having irresponsible government. No major political party would be able to form the Government and carry out the policies which it genuinely believed to be in the national interest.
I am violently opposed to the referendum on those grounds, and on the grounds of collective responsibility. On an issue of crucial importance to the country it cannot be right for Ministers, whichever party is in power, to have to parade their differences, for them genuinely to disagree, with half campaigning for one side and half campaigning for the other. That is the negation of the Cabinet system of government which we have had for a considerable time, and it is a damaging precedent.
Apart from dealing with those major constitutional matters, I have three things to say on minor issues. The more I have listened to the debate, the more I have become convinced that hon. Members will be rushing to take part in the campaign. The Leader of the House asked for views, and I give him my view that the House has a duty to have a Recess, so that we may take an active part in the campaign, for whichever side we wish.
My second point concerns holiday makers, those who are abroad, those who could not have known when the registers were compiled last October that there might be a referendum the following June. I ask the Minister to bear in mind that many people will be disfranchised. The Leader of the House said that in June not many people would be on holiday. But my experience in my own constituency in the June 1970 General Election was that very large numbers of people felt very aggrieved about their inability to vote. They were not confined to my own political party. They existed in large numbers. If this is such a unique occasion, the Government have a duty to enfranchise such people for this purpose.
I come, then, to the last of my minor but reasonably important points. I take

the view that if we are to have a referendum it is right to have a national count in the way that the Government have outlined. I should not wish that to go by default and for the Government to feel that only those against the idea had taken part in this debate. If we have a referendum for the United Kingdom, we have a United Kingdom count. If we have a referendum for Northern Ireland, we have a Northern Ireland count. If a referendum is held in Wales about Welsh Sunday opening county by county, there is a county count. It seems to me that the analogy is exact.
Those are peripheral matters. The crucial issue which this House will be asked when the Bill comes before it is whether we are to throw away that in which we all believe, which is the idea of a responsible House of Commons deciding on the evidence before it whether to agree to certain legislative or other action in the interests of the country. If that principle is to be breached, this will not be the last occasion. We have heard Scottish and Welsh Members say that it should apply to devolution. Other hon. Members have said that the principle should be extended further. If that happens, the unique forum which this House has been for a great many years will have been thrown away for no substantial gain.
Therefore, I hope that when we come to the Second Reading of the Bill we shall decide to reject the referendum proposal. I believe that if we do that it will be in the interests of the House of Commons.

9.22 p.m.

Mr. David Lambie: Unlike the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Chanson). I am in favour of a referendum. I am not so arrogant as to think that the collective wisdom of the 635 Members of this House is of greater value than the collective wisdom of the electorate. Anyone who believes in democracy at the end of the day must believe that the collective voice of the people is of greater value than that of the 635 Members of this House.
I was not sent here as a Labour Member representing a Scottish constituency to protect the traditions and practices of this House. I have no great love for the traditions and practices of this House.


As one who believes passionately in devolution and, further, in self-government for Scotland and Wales, I am here to support the break-up of the traditions and practices of this House. In a future debate, I hope that we shall see the Scots and Welsh people— and, for that matter, anyone living in one of the English regions who wants self-government and more power going to the regions — achieving self government.
I listened carefully to the arguments advanced by the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mrs. Ewing) and by my hon. Friends the Members for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) and Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown).
I support the hon. Lady's argument that it is a mockery of democracy to have a central count. Those who are against referenda and afraid of democracy are the same people who are in favour of a central count. That is why I was disappointed to hear my right hon. Friend the Lord President say that the only reason for the central count was his wish to unite the country. I put it to him that in Scotland he will cause disunity, especially amongst Labour voters, if he persists with his central count.

Mr. David Walder: If the hon. Gentleman is in favour of a referendum and a national count, why does he wish to relate the results of that to constituencies which, as I understand his argument, are irrelevant.

Mr. Lambie: Because I believe in the general democratic principle that the more one devolves the system of government or the system of election the better the result and the more interest there is in it.
A fortnight ago, my constituency Labour Party took a decision with which I wholeheartedly agree. We shall campaign as a constituency Labour Party to try to get Britain out of the EEC. If we want a high poll, and I am sure we do, we must involve local interests, and we shall do that only if we run the campaign locally.
It is nonsense to bring every ballot paper from Scotland to some central point in London and do the count over five days, with perhaps 5,000 or 55,000 counters. I do not know the exact figure, but we shall

have to put up with all these people being at Earls Court for five days counting the votes of the people of Scotland, among others. This is nonsense, and it is nonsense to try to carry it out on the principle that we want to unite the people of this country.

Mr. Gerry Fowler: If I may take up my hon. Friend's local interest point, can he explain how it is that we always get very much lower polls at district and county elections than at General Elections? Surely at the former the local interest must be at its highest.

Mr. Lambie: My hon. Friend should compare the London constituency results at the last General Election with the local government constituency results in Scotland at the recent election. He will find that there was a greater interest in the local Scottish election, as shown by the percentage poll, than there was in the London constituencies at the General Election, when certain important Members were elected with less than 50 per cent. of the people voting. I hope that my hon. Friend will not put that argument forward as a reason against decentralising the vote.
The people of Scotland know how they will vote. They will vote against remaining in the EEC. There is no doubt about that. The Glasgow Herald is carrying out a series of polls. Every poll is conducted by independent investigators, and they show clearly that the Scottish people, by an overwhelming majority, are voting against entry. I put it to the Government that they will put Labour Members of Parliament at a disadvantage in Scotland if they persist with this central poll. This is being done not in the interests of efficiency or on the issue of democracy, but because the Government are afraid to learn how the people of Scotland and England vote. If they persist in this, they will create problems for Labour Members from Scottish constituencies.
I now propose to deal with the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central. I fought the last election on the basis of the Labour Party manifesto which stated clearly that we were in favour of consulting the people either by way of a General Election or by way of a referendum. I put it to the


Government that Willie Hamilton standing as Willie Hamilton for Fife, Central would get 10 votes, but Willie Hamilton standing as the Labour candidate for Fife, Central would win.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): Order. The hon. Member will be naming me next.

Mr. Lambie: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I thought that my method of referring to the hon. Member in that impersonal way was allowed. If it is not, I withdraw what I said. I say to my hon. Friends that the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton), standing as Willie Hamilton, would get 10 votes, but the hon. Member for Fife, Central standing as Willie Hamilton the Labour candidate in a Left-wing, almost Communist, constituency would win.
The TUC, the Labour Party annual conference and the manifesto of the Labour Party on which we fought the last election stated clearly that we would consult the people on this issue either by way of a General Election or a referendum. I put it to my right hon. and hon. Friends that we are putting in difficulties Labour Members who fought the election on our party manifesto and who are prepared to stand by that manifesto.
We fought the election on this issue and we should stand by it. We are not arguing about the pros and cons of entry or withdrawal. We are arguing the principle of whether we should consult the people of this country. I know where I am going. As the Labour Member of Parliament for Central Ayrshire, I am campaigning locally for a "No" vote. At the end of the campaign I shall want to know whether I have been successful, how the people of Central Ayrshire, the people of Scotland and the people of the United Kingdom voted. Unlike most hon. Members, I am not afraid of democracy and I am prepared to stand by the majority opinion of the people I represent.

9.32 p.m.

Mr. John Davies: I, too, would be fascinated to hear how the electors of Central Ayrshire voted, but I shall not follow the hon. Member's argument.
I should like to return to the central question of the advisability and appropriateness of referring this obviously vital matter to the British people in a referendum. Although hon. Members may not be totally satisfied with it I have a good word to say for the referendum. If, as I suspect may be the truth, it is a way of resolving, relatively quickly, the issues surrounding British membership of the Community, let us have it quickly— and affirmatively. I shall greatly welcome an abandonment of the humiliating role which this country has played in its external relations in the past 12 months.
From any reasonable European standpoint Britain is seen as a petulant and petty-minded Kingdom, rigorously seeking some narrow interests of its own without regard to wider considerations. I find that distressing beyond words and I should like to see us absolved from it.
Two years ago, when we became a member of the Community, there was a great feeling of relief and satisfaction among the eight other Members— a feeling that Britain was a country with great traditions, with a great belief in democracy and a country able to contribute something vital and necessary, perhaps hitherto absent, to the whole formulation of the Community. When it came to the question of how best to deal with the election of a proper Parliament in Europe. Britain was expected to contribute something substantial.

Mr. Russell Kerr: When was this?

Mr. Davies: As recently as two years ago. Look where we are now. At that time in many areas which were considered to be of vital importance to the future of Europe and its ability to play an effective part in the world we were seen as the people bringing new thought, a new line and a new dimension to the whole concept of European unity. We have sadly abandoned that. If a referendum is necessary to reinstate us to a position where we can once again take up our proper position in these matters a referendum there must be— but with the greatest regret.
For all I have said, I cannot vote for this referendum on any score. It seems objectionable from the point of view of its constitutional content, in terms of it


ability to pose a valid question with clarity and in terms of the complexity of the issues surrounding the answering of any valid question. Last, but not least, it seems objectionable because it is an unworthy thing for this House to have on the whole, agreed that it should refer back to the people the question of the negation and renunciation of a treaty into which we entered as recently as two-and-a-half years ago. On all these scores, I feel deeply resentful of the thought that it should necessarily be by this means that we return to a rightful stance within the European Community and are able to make our proper contribution to it.
I do not have a great deal to say about the constitutional issues, which have been dealt with most effectively by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) in an admirable speech. I look back with some personal satisfaction to the fact that my maiden speech in this House was on the subject of the validity of a referendum for determining our membership of the Community. I am glad to say that I at least can claim some consistency. I have not changed my stance one iota.
I felt only satisfaction at being able to add my name to those of my right hon. and hon. Friends who had signed the motion tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, North (Mr. James) dealing with the extension of the referendum principle to include whether people thought that Parliament should decide. I still think that that is a valid question which should be answered. I have little doubt, on the constitutional issue, that what we are at present conniving at is wrong.
It is certainly one of the most complex issues, in any reasonable sense, to understand the full spectrum of the Community in all its activities. I imagine that other hon. Members must have been approached as I have, by hundreds of constituents from every walk of life saying, "We are faced with an impossible dilemma. We do not understand what we are being asked to make a decision on." The fact that we as a House should be prepared to do that, knowing the immense difficulties we are casting on our constituents, is unworthy of us.
The hon. Member for Belper (Mr. Mac-Farquhar) made a most interesting speech.

If the question of the direct election to a European Parliament were an issue to be put to the people now, it would be more suitable, although I am against referenda, as an issue for a referendum than the complex and widespread question concerning the Community as a whole. It would be possible to frame a question which people could answer with clarity, understanding what they were doing. This is an enormous, juggernaut problem, quite incapable of being appraised in 2,000 or 20,000 words— even if anyone reads them.

Mr. MacFarquhar: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his remarks. I accept the point that the question of direct elections to a European Parliament would be a more suitable subject for a referendum. However, my feeling is that when that stage is reached the process will already be irreversible.

Mr. Davies: We do retain the absolute right to say "Yes" or "No" to what we wish in the Community and we must continue to exercise that right.
An interesting point raised by the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) illustrated exactly the kind of difficulty facing us in terms of clarity. He was niggling about whether we are talking of a European Community or European Communities. Is it not appropriate to ask whether we would wish to remain a member of the European Coal and Steel Community but not of the European Economic Community? That poses real problems. There are many sound arguments, if we are to go into that niggling area of discussion on detail, on positive and separate questions. The framing of a question with clarity is itself of immense difficulty, as we have seen today, not least because the very thing of which we are speaking is unclear to those to whom we are addressing our question.
Parliament, with all its sovereignty and with the support which the British method of government gives it, has reached a conclusion embodied in a treaty with many other countries. How bad a moment it is when Parliament regards it as necessary to throw back that right to the people. How great a doubt it must pose in the minds of so many other people. Can anybody doubt that the Atlantic Alliance is


a matter of the most fundamental importance to us? How great a risk is there that this, too, might in its turn be thrown into the jaws of a referendum.

Mr. Lee: The right hon. Gentleman quotes the Atlantic Alliance. Is it not a fact that one can give six months' notice and leave that organisation? That distinguishes it from the Common Market, for the ultimate article in the treaty, if it is read in its literal sense, states that we can never leave it.

Mr. Davies: The hon. Gentleman is making my point for me. It is Parliament that should decide. It should not be decided by a reference back without any concern for Parliament's view. I consider that on all counts we are tonight unfortunately likely to reach a conclusion on a proposal which is essentially unworthy of us, which is unjustified and which is done for petty and mean reasons which I deplore. I am prepared regretfully to see it happen because it is only by that means that we can reach a conclusion.

9.42 p.m.

Mr. Alf Bates: I welcome the Government's decision to hold a referendum as outlined in the White Paper. My constituents will welcome this decision as an election pledge which is now being fulfilled.
I accept what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton). Our manifesto said that we would consult the British people through the ballot box, and throughout the last General Election campaign I said that of the options open through the ballot box, I thought the referendum was by far the wisest course.
The situation that we are facing is quite different from any other decision which we have to take, as was very well outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. MacFarquhar). People delegate to Parliament power over all matter, but, having done so it is surely right that over one matter Parliament should not have supreme power, and that is the matter of giving away a power which has been delegated to it. For that reason I consider that we are in an entirely unique position.
However, I do not want to deal with many of the constitutional matters. I

want to speak almost entirely about the nature of the count and the way in which the result is to be declared. I start from the premise that the purpose of holding a referendum is to ensure that the will of the people is carried out in the end by Parliament. There are many ways in which the referendum count could take place and the result could be declared. Some of them are outlined in the White Paper. There could be a count on a constituency basis, on a county basis, or on a regional basis, or in many other ways. Whether in the end we come out of the Common Market or stay in, we shall do so as one nation. We shall not come out on a regional basis. We shall not come out on a constituency basis.
That leads me to support the conclusion that the Government come to and the arrangements for a single national count. We have to ask ourselves: what is the purpose of, for example, a regional count? Why should we declare a result on a regional basis? Would it help Parliament to carry through the will of the people, as I initially described? I think not. If we believe that it is our duty simply to carry through the will of the people as nationally expressed, I do not see how a separate count could possibly help. Alternatively, is it an attempt to use the referendum for entirely different purposes, namely, promoting false nationalism, as many of us suspect?
People say that there will be opinion polls, anyway. I thought that in these days nobody took much notice of opinion polls. A declaration of those results in that way would only make official, even if the polls were accurate, what is a myth. Regional counts cannot add anything to our knowledge or to the way in which we conduct our business after the count has taken place.
Let us examine a few possibilities, because there are a number of inherent dangers. Let us suppose that the nation as a whole voted to stay in. Let us suppose that England voted to stay in while Scotland and Wales voted to come out. It is perfectly possible that could happen.

Mr. Lambie: What is wrong with that?

Mr. Bates: There is nothing especially wrong about it. I want to ask the House what it would do afterwards. Would


Scottish Members believe, on that basis, that Scotland should leave the Common Market whilst England remained in? Is that really a viable proposition? I have not heard anybody suggest that, and I have heard members of the Scottish National Party suggest that they could not possibly do it.

Mr. Percy Grieve: Has the hon. Gentleman considered the possibility that, although it is not a viable proposition, there are still a great number of people who would be foolish enough to believe it?

Mr. Bates: I am sure that people will believe it, but whether they do or do not and whether or not it is declared in that way, we all know that as a whole we should stay in, because such is the nature of this place and the nature of people's feelings in this case.
I am drawn to the conclusion that the desire of, for example, the Scottish National Party to have the vote counted on this basis is simply a desire to be able to say, in those circumstances, "It was the English who kept you in against your will ", knowing very well that that is the only possible outcome. In other words, it is simply a desire to use the referendum for the entirely different purpose of promoting nationalism.
Let us suppose that we have a situation in which the overall result was that we should come out— that England voted to stay in whilst Scotland and Wales voted to come out. What would be the position of English Labour Members? In those circumstances, would they feel bound by the English result, or would they be bound by the national result?
It is important to remember that, in the main, the Tories will in any event vote to stay in. It is strongly possible that there would be a sufficient number of English Labour Members who would accept the English vote rather than the overall national vote and who would vote with the Tories and keep the whole nation in the Common Market against the national will. If that happened, where would be the confidence of the people in this place after this very massive and very pointless exercise?
There are eight possible combinations if Scotland and Wales are considered separately. I shall not bore the House

with any more of them. Only two of them would produce a unifying and, therefore, satisfactory result. The rest would be unnecessarily divisive, because we all know that the only result to be carried into practice is the overall national one and that there is, therefore, only one way in which the result should be declared— that is, singly and nationally.
There is the possibility of declaring the result on a constituency basis. Many of my hon. Friends who are opposed to our staying in the Common Market favour a constituency-type count. They should think seriously about that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Lambie) said that he supported the Labour Party's manifesto but his constituency party had decided to campaign against. I am not sure what that means.
I ask any members of my party who seriously wish Britain to come out of the Common Market, and have made up their minds on that basis, to think about the suggestion that there should be a constituency count. There is only one way in which Britain will leave the Common Market, and that is if the Labour Party remains united. We must remain united on a single agreement. Some of my hon. Friends may not want that, but I want it. I want the Labour Party to remain united on a single agreement that after the referendum we shall vote in favour of what the referendum says.

Mr. Russell Kerr: My hon. Friend is asking for the moon.

Mr. Bates: If my hon. Friend wishes, as I believe he does, to get Britain out of the Common Market, he should join me in at least striving for the somewhat distant objective of which I have spoken. I shall not be put off by the fact that some members of my party may attempt to split it. I start from the premise that there is only one way to get Britain out of the Common Market, and that is to unite the Labour Party over the single objective of agreeing to abide by the result of the referendum.

Mr. Stan Thorne: Does my hon. Friend recall that it was 69 members of the Labour Party who split it when they voted for Britain's entry into the Common Market?

Mr. Bates: I recall that. It is one strong reason why I advocate what I am now advocating. The only way to ensure that the vast majority of members of the Labour Party vote according to the result of the referendum is by our having a single national count.
If the Tory Party, as I believe, votes in the main, after the result, to stay in the Common Market, and if we have a constituency count, there will be a sufficient number of Members on this side who will find constituency excuses to vote with the Tories. Such constituency excuses will not be present if there is a single national count. That is why I want a single national count.
It would be fine if every Member voted as his constituency voted, but hon. Members will not do that. For one thing, the Tories will not do that. The only way to carry through a decision to leave the Common Market is for the Labour Party to agree to abide by a single national result.

Mr. A. P. Costain: If the Prime Minister recommends this country to stay in the Common Market, will the hon. Gentleman feel no obligation to support him?

Mr. Bates: I am talking of the posisition after the referendum has taken place. I want to ensure that this House abides by the national decision.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: Mr. D. E. Thomas rose—

Mr. Bates: I had better not give way. It would not be so bad if the Tories would abide by the referendum result, but they will not. They will use the referendum. They will campaign in the referendum process and seek to influence people, but they will not abide by the result. For that reason, those who will abide by the result of the referendum must act as one and, after the result, must have the one clear objective of putting into effect the declared wish of the people. Otherwise, the whole exercise is pointless and, indeed, harmful. In my view, many of the dangers inherent in this exercise are best eliminated by the arrangement that the Government have proposed.

9.57 p.m.

Mr. Julian Critchley: If life is one humiliation after another, this debate and the referendum will be a humiliation for the House of Commons.
The referendum is a device that can only accelerate the decline in the standing and influence of Members of Parliament and of the House of Commons. The question, "Explain the decline in the influence and standing of the MP ", was in the O-level papers last year. I think that all of us could attempt an answer. It begins by starting to draw attention to the increase in the power of the executive extracted from the legislature. The second part is to look at the Civil Service, the bureaucracy, and the power that has arisen there. The third part is to look outside the House of Commons at all the new institutions that have arisen— the CBI, the TUC, the BBC and the IBA. While this has been going on Members of Parliament have been left underpaid, underfed and, rumour has it, undersexed.

Mr. Lambie: The hon. Gentleman should speak for himself.

Mr. Critchley: And, if this referendum has its way, utterly unimportant to boot.
Some hon. Members have suggested that there should be a recess for the duration of the referendum campaign so that we might electioneer. Yet this would be an election in which we, as Members of Parliament, had no more standing or status than any other elector. Frankly, we would do far better to stay behind and let the people get on with it.
The referendum smacks of an odious cynicism. It is an attempt to try to keep one of our institutions— the Labour Party— more or less intact at the price of seriously weakening a second institution— this House itself. We cannot begin to understand or discuss the referendum without understanding and motive that lies behind its advocacy, and its motive has been explained by more than one hon. Member from all parts of the House today. Be under no illusion. Were the answer to the referendum to be "Yes" in June, the "antis" in the Labour Party, to say nothing of the "antis" elsewhere, would not cease from strife, and that would not be the end of that particular great debate. It might have been more sensible—

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,

That, at this Day's sitting, the Motion in the name of the Prime Minister for the Adjournment of the House may be proceeded with, though opposed, until Twelve o'clock and that the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Bill [Lords], the Supply Powers Bill [Lords] and the Statute Law (Repeals) Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour—[Mr. Coleman.]

EEC MEMBERSHIP (REFERENDUM)

Question again proposed.

Mr. Critchley: It might have been wiser had the present Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. Wilson), in 1972 faced the problem there and then rather than postpone it, because I think the effect upon the Labour Party of the referendum campaign itself may well be disastrous, and the only people, quite naturally, who can gain from that are my hon. Friends.
The renegotiation exercise itself has done this country and Europe an injury. We have subjected our friends to an exercise in persuasion against their will,

extracting from them marginal concessions at a high price of their good will. The whole process of renegotiation has been a distraction which has consumed our time and theirs at a time of immense crises, both externally and within this country.
How ironic it is, faced with a failing sense of security, the risk of international economic co-operation failing, the effect of OPEC and the energy crisis upon Europe and upon European-American relations, a threatened and actual failure of leadership among the nations of the Western world, the threat to the southern flank of NATO and an increasingly active Soviet diplomacy, that Europe and ourselves have wasted our time and energy on an obvious manoeuvre designed to hide the rift within the Labour Party itself. That is the division between the neutralists and the National Socialists, on the one hand, and the Social Democrats upon the other.
If renegotiation is an injury, the referendum itself is an insult. It is an insult to this House, to every Member of the House, to the history of the House and to all that it stands for. As an institution, the House is under attack. This is a sad day indeed. I shall most certainly vote against a referendum.

10.3 p.m.

Mr. John P. Mackintosh: I shall take up some of the points made by the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley) shortly. I should like to begin by looking at the reasons the Government gave in the White Paper and in the speech of the Lord President for introducing this proposal which is totally unprecedented in the history of this country. There is one throw-away line in the preface of the White Paper which says that this is a unique issue and that it is the unique nature of the issue which necessitates the referendum. I think that this matter has been dealt with, but let us be clear.
In the last 400 years of its history this House has not only exercised sovereignty but has given away sovereignty— not just on the Common Market issue, which is arguable, but when it conceded independence to the Republic of Ireland. This House acquired sovereignty over an Empire of 600 million people, and then gave away that sovereignty country by country. I think that the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) would agree with me that it was an historic act when Parliament gave away sovereignty over the 400 million people of the Indian Empire. These things were done— war, peace, and the creation and ending of an Empire— by debate and decision in this House of Commons. This, therefore, is the history of the matter. So one cannot argue that membership of the European Community is in any sense a unique occasion which merits unique treatment.
I turn to the other reasons given by the Lord President. He said that the previous Conservative Government had no mandate for entry. We often toss across the Floor of the House the question who has and who has not got a mandate. But it has never been part of the constitutional procedure of this country to suggest that a Government cannot meet the exigencies of the day without a precise commitment in their previous election manifesto. Indeed, most of the important things that Governments do are not the implementation of specific pledges which they have put to the public and on which they have obtained a specific endorsement but are reactions to new situations. But let us

be clear, there was no mandate on the part of the Macmillan Government to apply for entry in the early 1960s. There was no mandate for the Labour Government to apply to enter in 1967. But surely it is clear that when one Government of one party and then the next Government of another party both apply unsuccessfully to join the European Community, it cannot come as a total shock to the British electorate if, at a subsequent election, another Government, the third in succession, repeats what has been a consistent activity and attempt to enter the European Community. I cannot see that the argument that there was no mandate for entry can apply in this case.

Mr. English: Mr. English rose—

Mr. Mackintosh: Then there was the suggestion by the Lord President and others that the EEC Bill was steamrollered through the House. During its passage there was some steamrollering on the Government side, but do not let anyone imagine that there was no steamrollering on the Opposition side. We started with a majority of 112. That was composed, as my hon. Friend the Member for Preston, South (Mr. Thorne) has said, of 69 of my hon. Friends voting in favour and 20 abstentions. The steamroller was then introduced on the Labour side.
No one can imagine that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Office did not want to vote in favour of British membership throughout the entire Bill. Do not let anyone imagine that those of us who voted for the principle would not, had we not been pressurised, have voted regularly for the Bill. I admit that to my shame many of us followed the Whip against our convictions. To my knowledge, there was no one in the majority of 112 who changed his mind by the end of the debate although the Bill finally had a majority of only 8. If there was any oddity about the passage of the Bill it was not that there was steamrollering on one side but that there was steamrollering on both sides. Had there not been that pressure on the Opposition side on pro-European Members, there might have been more relaxation on the Government side.
So let us not pretend that there was anything very peculiar about the passage of the Bill. The only thing I can detect that is particular or new about the situation is that it is the first time that this country has solemnly proposed to tear up a treaty agreed to and entered into by the Government and endorsed by the House. The shock that this has administered to Britain's friends in other parts of the world is phenomenal and disastrous. We have deluded ourselves by talking about this matter as a "renegotiation "; we must remind ourselves that in reality it is a tearing up of an agreement that was reached by the Government of this country.

Mr. Winifred Ewing: Mr. Winifred Ewing rose—

Mr. Mackintosh: The only serious special reason that has been put forward for bringing in a referendum on this question does not lie in the nature of the issue or in the nature of the problem but in the difficulties faced by the Labour Party in handling the issue within itself. I agree that there is some importance in keeping parties united. We all know the benefit of the two party system. The House does not work adequately without a party system with which to inspire it and to keep it going. That position is perfectly clear. But to inflict this particular issue on Parliament as a remedy for a party division is entirely monstrous. When the idea was first proposed by the Prime Minister, I said that it was a sad day for the history of the House when a Prime Minister should declare that the House was fundamentally incompetent to take a major decision involving the future of Britain. My right hon. Friend rose and said that he had said no such thing, but in fact that is precisely what is being said.
I wish that the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) were present. The right hon. Gentleman asked whether there was to be a vote on principle on the Floor of the House before the referendum. We have been told that there will be a vote on principle. That cannot be stopped. It will be an unwhipped vote on the Floor of the House on whether the House recommends that the British people should remain in the Community. By any calculation the majority will be larger than

112— namely, the number of Members who voted in favour in October 1971.
The real nature of the disaster we are encountering is that, having observed that with a Conservative Government in power, there was a majority of 112 for entry, and then when a Labour Government was in power, we shall probably have a larger majority, despite these majorities by which the House of Commons recommended entry, the Government then say to the British people, "We consider that all this is not sufficient. It is not an adequate indication of the interests of this country."
The fundamental assumption behind the referendum is that this House does not adequately represent the feelings of this country. That is the proposition being put forward. I appreciate that many people have said, and it is an obvious point— it does not matter which way the result of the referendum goes— that if we drive home the point that a consistent majority of this House, one Government with another, does not represent the feelings of the people in this country, we are inviting referenda on other subjects. Much worse, however, every time either major party passes a contentious Bill, some newspaper will Commission a Gallup poll and will say that there is no majority support. And of course the House of Commons has admitted that a big majority in the House does not mean that a measure has the consent of the people. It may happen on a labour relations Bill, a nationalisation proposal by the Labour Party, or on a devolution proposal. One very important and tendentious issue which we pass there will be a Gallup poll among the public and it will be said that we do not represent the feelings of the country, that the House had admitted it and that the newspaper has a poll to prove it. And if there is no majority on a head count, there is an assumption that people need not obey such dubious laws.
Another terrible thing is that the referendum will perpetuate a confusion between Government by debate, thought, reflection and decision in this House with a head count. That is where I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English), and I apologise for having earlier interrupted him from a seated position. He said that


for him democracy meant majorities. 'This country has never believed that. There has not been a majority on a head count basis for many of the greatest reforms that this House has been proud to pass. The best case for these reforms lay in the considered judgment of those elected to serve the constituencies of this country. I say to the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mrs. Ewing)— and I appreciate her arguments— that even her case would stand a better chance of being seriously considered under the majority opinion of the Members of this House rather than by submission to a head count with all the difficulties of whom to poll and how to phrase the question.

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: Does the hon. Member not admit that this is an unlikely possibility? We would have to expect the English Members not only to be reasonable, as they are, but to be ultrareasonable if they are seriously to support the case for self-government for Scotland. We hope that they will, but there are only 71 Scottish Members out of 635, and that is a problem when one is in a common market.

Mr. Mackintosh: This House has conceded independence not only to the Republic of Ireland but to 34 other nations on the view of this House as to what is just and fair. That is a better result than could have been achieved on a head count, even if one could have solved the question of which heads were to be counted and on what question.
I wish finally to deal with a point which was raised by various hon. Members, and it concerns the practice in other countries. I wish to support the argument advanced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) that there is no other country that operates a representative system of democracy through an elected House like ours that has found this method adequate or appropriate for reaching decisions. My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Gould) referred to New Zealand. In fact, New Zealand has put only matters such as the licensing hours, betting laws, conscription and special issues of that kind to such a test. The New Zealand people have never

been invited to overturn a decision of their Parliament. Decisions on certain limited issues have been handed out to the people as they have been here on a veto poll, but the people have never been invited to reverse parliamentary decisions on major matters of national policy.
Perhaps I may point to the disaster which occurred in Norway— [Interruption.] Hon. Members may laugh about that, but I am not referring to the outcome of the vote but to the effect it had on the constitutional life of the country when the governing party was split and destroyed and when it became impossible to carry on the government. We are faced here with an identical proposal. We are told that if the government are defeated in their recommendation to the public they will still carry on governing. Does that mean that the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary would pursue a policy in serious dealings with other countries which they had earlier said was inadvisable? That would be utterly irresponsible in the technical sense of the word because they would be carrying on a policy for which not they but the referendum device was responsible. In the next election if the public said "What a ghastly mess" the Government would say "It is not our fault. We carried out a policy in which we did not believe." Is that the way to conduct the government of the country?
My time is running out but there are many other arguments I could put forward on this disastrous proposal. I argue not from a pro- or anti-Common Market angle. This proposal for a referendum is as likely to do damage to proposals for Left-wing reform or any other policy that may be brought before the House. On a head count, a majority would not have been obtained for many of the great reforms with which the Labour Party has been associated. I am not opposed to referenda because of the special issue of the Market. I am confident that the pro-Marketeers will win, but I should vote against the referendum even if I knew that they would win. The referendum is a bad thing. I have heard pro-Marketeers say, "Do not fight it, because we shall win." The hon. Memfor Newport (Mr. Hughes) said that this was a victory for the anti-Marketeers. I do not care for whom it is a victory.


It is a defeat for the parliamentary system of government and that is why I cannot vote for it.

10.16 p.m.

Miss Janet Fookes: It is an agreeable surprise to learn how many members of the Labour Party are opposed to a referendum, as I am. I should not regard it as unconstitutional in the sense that I presume that Parliament has the right to make these arrangements and carry them through if it so wishes, but I believe that it is wholly wrong and misguided.
There might have been an argument for a referendum before we entered the Common Market, but we have now entered it, we have signed the treaty, and we should not tear up the treaty that we signed so recently. I heard from behind me on this subject a muttered remark to the effect that we have torn up treaties before, but its having been done before does not make it right to do it again. I recall that it was because one power treated as a scrap of paper the neutrality of Belgium guaranteed by a treaty that we had war in Europe.
I turn to the question of parliamentary sovereignty. Perhaps I may put it in more personal terms. I do not know the various reasons why hon. Members seek to come to the House, although there always seems to be an almighty scramble to get here. It is not for the money we are paid or for our splendid working conditions. It is because we hope to have a share in the destiny of our country by exercising our judgment, and I guard that privilege very jealously. I hope that the people trust us to make those judgments on their behalf, as they always have the right to throw us out in a general election— as a know to my cost.
There are many people in my constituency who are bewildered by the issues and would prefer the guidance of Parliament. That has not been sufficiently stressed in the debate. During the last election a woman came up to me and said "I do not understand what all this is about. Why cannot Parliament decide?" I am sure there are many people who share that view.
It is true that the people have to make up their minds about the issues in a General Election, but I suspect that by the

time they have been bombarded by all the various arguments they are confused about that also. Indeed, on the doorsteps many people said to me "First we listen to one side and it seems convincing, then we listen to the other and that seems equally convincing. In the end we are more confused than we were when we began." I suspect that the same will occur on this issue, which is much more complex than are many of the issues that have to be decided in a General Election. Worse still, we are faced with a raging inflation with all manner of problems. Yet here we are spending time, money and effort on this referendum when I believe the real issues are elsewhere. We should be getting on with those issues.
I turn to the White Paper and the details of the referendum there set out. On the assumption that the Bill will receive a Second Reading, I suggest some possible improvements in the measure. The wording on the ballot paper has already been discussed at length, but I share the view of the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton)— and it came as a surprise and a shock to me that I hold a view in common with the hon. Gentleman. I believe that it would be right for additional wording to appear on the ballot paper so that if people so wish they can leave it to Parliament to decide. I see no reason why this should not be done technically if the will is there for it to be done.

Mr. John Ovenden: Taking up that suggestion, how would the hon. Lady interpret a vote by the British people in which 40 per cent. of the votes were cast against continued membership, 35 per cent. for continued British membership, and the remainder said that the matter should be left to British Members of Parliament? How would she interpret such a result?

Miss Fookes: Obviously we should have to have a totally different way of evaluating the situation. It could not be done on a simple majority, as has been suggested. I feel that the matter is so complicated that people should have an alternative if they so wish.
This brings me to a point with which the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House did not deal adequately. It


arises from paragraph 8 of the White Paper.
 The Government are concerned that the size of the poll should be adequate, and they are confident that it will be so.
I do not know on what they base that confidence. Perhaps we could be told in the Government's reply.

Mr. Cyril Smith: I should like to make a comment on the size of the poll. I am in favour of the referendum, but is the hon. Lady aware that it is proposed that the poll should be held in the annual holidays of certain constituencies, and that my constituency is included in them? How will that lead to a high poll?

Miss Fookes: That is a matter for the Government to answer since it is their idea. The paragraph continues:
They also consider it to be of great importance that the verdict of the poll should be clear and conclusive.
But they do not suggest how this can be brought about, nor do they suggest what should be done if the answer is not clear and conclusive. We have the right to ask the Government what they would do in those circumstances. I foresee all sorts of difficulties following a low poll and an inconclusive result. I suspect that the matter would have to come back to the House for a decision and the whole exercise would be a complete waste of time.
I turn to the point about a central count. I cannot say that I am deeply moved one way or the other on the question but, on balance, there may be an advantage in carrying out the count at constituency level. I believe that there are administrative difficulties in trying to arrange the count centrally. We have a well-proven legal system that we know works pretty well. I cannot imagine what the position would be if a recount were required. I have experienced six recounts in one small constituency. I shudder to think what a recount would be like over 635 constituencies.
We must not overlook the difficulties in transporting the ballot boxes. I shall not attempt to emulate the description given by the hon. Lady the Member for Moray and Nairn (Mrs. Ewing) and her highly-coloured account of what might happen to the ballot boxes on the way to Earls Court. But I was sufficiently

intimidated by the prospect of her in her fur hat mounting guard over the ballot boxes to feel that it would be as well if we kept to the old method.
More seriously, if people will try to find out the results on a constituency, regional or national basis, as they have threatened, there is merit in having the figures available. Otherwise, there will be endless speculation, and all kinds of possibly inaccurate figures will be given. For that reason alone it would be as well to arrange the referendum on the old basis.
The real snag is that the referendum has not been undertaken for the right reasons. The hon. Member for Fife, Central vividly stated the position when he said that it was to cover up the difficulties in which the Government find themselves because they are deeply split on the matter. I do not believe that good comes out of actions undertaken for completely wrong reasons. The Government, and probably we, may well live to rue the day when the referendum was agreed upon.

10.26 p.m.

Mr. Max Madden: The hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux), in a most perceptive speech, said that we were all here today because of the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) [HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he? "] It is a great pity that he has not shaken the Spanish sand from his shoes to be with us. If he had been here, he would have joined those who opposed the referendum.
It would do us all good to dwell on the speech made by the hon. Member for Antrim, South. He rightly said that we are discussing a referendum because the handling of the issue by the Conservative Government resulted in a fester which has remained in the hearts and minds of the majority of the British people. All fair-minded and reasonable people, all people with an affection for parliamentary democracy, will agree with me that the way in which we were herded into the Common Market was a parliamentary travesty. It was done by a series of derisory votes on legislation which was an abomination, considering that it was on a momentous issue, legislation which reached the House in 12


clauses and which was run through the House under the guillotine. It was in ail respects a parliamentary travesty.
For that reason, Parliament lost its reputation and the regard which many people had for it. It was the victim of manipulation by the Conservative Government, led by people who were and still are Euro-fanatics. They wanted this country in the Common Market at almost any price. We must face that issue today, and in doing so we must overcome the objections which many of us have to a referendum.
The White Paper presents a first historic step in the honouring of the commitment which the Labour Government gave to the people at the last election that they would allow the people to decide this great issue.
If this referendum is to settle the matter finally and satisfactorily, as the parliamentary decision should have done before but did not because of the way in which it was handled, as the White Paper says it must be manifestly fair, it must be efficient and the outcome must be clear and conclusive. I am sure that those are the objectives of all of us who support the referendum.
Many of my hon. Friends have aired some of the shortcomings of the White Paper. Unfortunately, as it stands, the objectives are not likely to be achieved. I confine my criticisms to three matters— the question, the issue of Government information, and the arrangement for both sides to put their respective cases.
The White Paper says that the form of the question should be as free from bias as possible. The Government make it clear in the White Paper that they are not yet committed to any form of words. We have been told many times that the referendum should resemble a General Election as far as possible. If that is the design, why, then, is a preamble necessary? There is no similar preamble on a ballot form at a General Election. The Government do not say why they the holding an election and for what purpose. Therefore, I cannot see any genuine need for this preamble to appear on the ballot form in the referendum.
I come next to the wording of the question. If we are to fulfil the objective of fairness, we should avoid any suspicion that the question is trying to lead people

to certain conclusions. We are told by various experts in the ballot firms that in any campaign the form of the question is irrelevant. But I question that view, and I question the desirability of doing anything likely significantly to affect the outcome of the referendum. As the hon. Member for Plymouth, Drake (Miss Fookes) said, we must remember that anything which significantly can influence the outcome must be avoided at all costs. Even the most marginal influence could have an effect on the outcome. Therefore, there is an excellent case for the Government reconsidering the question and deciding to do away with the preamble.
The point has been made that again, in trying to get fairness and a conclusive outcome, we must all support the inclusion of the words "Common Market" in the question. That is the name that the people know. Many have learned to hate it—

Mr. William Hamilton: That is why my hon. Friend wants it in.

Mr. Madden: Let us use terms which people recognise. I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton), that this time we must make sure that the matter is concluded satisfactorily. We must do nothing which afterwards can be held up to question or suspicion. My hon. Friend has an interest this time in ensuring that that is done. If, for a second time, this House goes along a road which is paved with suspicion, Parliament will do itself great damage. We must all have regard to that.
I come to my second criticism, which concerns the issue of Government information. We are told in the White Paper that a massive Government information campaign would be inappropriate. But we see in the White Paper that the Government propose to issue a popular version of the renegotiated terms on a door-to-door basis. That is an unprecedented activity by a Government. It conflicts with criticisms made from the Labour benches when the last Conservative Government proposed to make publications available in Post Offices. We must look carefully at this proposal.
At a time when there is to be freedom from collective responsibility and when the majority and the minority are to be


allowed freely to express their views, it is incumbent on the Government to ensure that if the majority view is distributed on a door-to-door basis, the document should also carry the minority view. If the document is to be a balanced one which will help people come to a conclusion, that is the only course which can be supported.
Then I want to comment on the questions. Many of us are extremely concerned about the idea of a certain number of questions being put and answered by the respective umbrella groups. Who is to decide the questions? Who is to frame the questions? This again can lead to consequences and views which would be highly dangerous.
There is great concern about the setting up of special information units to provide, to use the phrase in the White Paper,
 interpretation of the renegotiated terms and the like ".
I believe that this would be an extremely dangerous and ill-advised course of action for the Government to take. They have a number of highly skilled and proficient information officers serving in the different information offices who have specialist knowledge of the activities of their departments. They know how the renegotiated terms will affect their Departments and their policies, and it would be wrong to superimpose upon these Departments special information units which many of us suspect will be manned by people without this special knowledge of the individual Department.
I warn the House that if we have one special unit in London the media will request regional information units because, they will say, it is impossible to get through on the telephone to the one here. We shall face the prospect of a whole series of special information units giving their interpretation of the renegotiated terms and the like to the media all over the country.
It is necessary to limit advertising both in the newspapers and on the hoardings, because, as we have heard, the money in this game is loaded in favour of a particular view. We should always beware of that. It is wrong to disregard this aspect of the matter. It would be easy to impose limits in this field.
I think that the White Paper is very sanguine about the media in this referendum campaign and in the debate that will lead up to it, which is an important period. We have seen that a disproportionate opportunity is provided by the media to those who favour our staying in the Common Market. How shall we deal with the situation that will arise when the "For" and "Against" cases are to be given on the media? The Government themselves will be asking for time to substantiate their recommendation. Will the Leader of the main Opposition party ask for equal time to reply? Will the Leader of the Liberal Party then also ask for equal time to reply? In those circumstances, the whole argument will be loaded in favour of the pro-Market movement.
This is a momentous issue. It cuts across all the major political parties. It will be irreversible, for if we stay in much longer it will be impossible for the United Kingdom to disentangle itself. This issue must be decided by the people. On this issue, and this issue alone. I favour a referendum because it will fulfil our election promise. This is the only way in which to resolve this long and unhappy episode in our history.

10.39 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Dykes: I hope that the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Madden) will not misunderstand if I say that his speech is living evidence that those who are fanatically anti-Europe are misanthropic and negative, whereas those in favour of staying in the Community remain optimistic, humanitarian, loving and deeply compassionate.
I should be tempted, if it merited it, to dwell for longer on the hon. Gentleman's speech, but I prefer to home in with some degree of admiration on the speeches of the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) and his hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh). It is a pity that other Members have not the courage that has been manifested by those two hon. Members in this great debate on this momentous issue to speak out as they did on what this is all about.
It would be wrong and a gross understatement to describe the speech of the Leader of the House when he outlined the Government's plans for this charade,


this pantomime, and this farce as other than a grotesque parody of what the House of Commons stands for and what his duties are to the whole House of Commons and not just to his own side and his own benches.
The arguments have been dealt with more than adequately. Nevertheless, there are one or two points which need to be repeated for the consumption of Labour Members and one or two of my hon. Friends. The people of this country see a Government who are dragging the country down in economic and social terms. They see a country which a couple of years ago signed a solemn treaty, backed by an overwhelming majority in this House—

Mr. Powell: Eight!

Mr. Dykes: — now seeking to overturn it. Never before have treaties been torn up so quickly after their promulgation. None the less, the Government persist in this curious charade, on this problematical exercise which will fatally weaken this House, our constitutional procedures and our basic principles.
Even more important, it will serve to undermine the morale of the people yet further. The hon. Member for Sowerby spoke of how crucial and special it was for the people to have a choice on this occasion. We must bear in mind the historical precedents for the skilful, devious and almost criminal use of referenda by people in non-democratic systems for their own purposes. We must remember that classical definition of the highly effective dictator with the toothbrush moustache who ruled over a nation not far from here. He defined the inner worth of a referendum as that of being able to secure the population bending to his single will.
If that were so, and I am not drawing any analogies about the personalities involved on the Government side, it would be an argument in favour— putting it at its most cynical— of having a resounding, almost scientifically measured "Yes" in favour of our remaining within the Community.
The most irresponsible act of all of this Government— and that is saying something— is that they know not what turn out will result. There is likely to be

some kind of problematical result with a low turnout and perhaps a marginal difference between the "Yes" and "No" vote. The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) said, three weeks ago, that even if there were a resounding "Yes" the argument would remain unresolved. The whole thing will go on. The referendum is not, per se. a clinching, definitive and final way of getting the issue out of the way. That is why I indict the Government for irresponsibility, for doing that for which the people will not forgive them. They are putting the Labour Party's fragile and ridiculous unity before the basic interests of the nation.
This is being done at a time when our partners in Europe are not merely beginning to pity us for what we are under this regime but are beginning to ask themselves when Britain will have the chance to pull out of this madness. The House should totally reject this chicanery and deviousness on the part of the Leader of the House and his colleagues, above all of the Prime Minister who has so grievously misled not only those at the Summit in Dublin which has just concluded but all his colleagues and the whole British people.

10.45 p.m.

Mr. John Roper: I do not wish to continue the constitutional arguments in what will have to be a brief intervention. Instead I will deal with one point concerning the green edges to this White Paper. I am a reluctant supporter of the referendum, a reluctant convert. I find it a most undesirable political innovation. I have come to accept it not because it will preserve party unity. I believe it is an innovation which will put considerable strain on the Government and on the party. I have come to accept it for reasons which are not dissimilar from those of the right hon. Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies).
The present nature of our membership of the European Community is totally unsatisfactory. The continued member. ship of a grumbling Britain is a serious brake on the development of the European Community. We must clarify the position of our membership one way or another, so that the Community is not continually held back by a member who is still uncertain whether he will continue in membership. The decision should


be made quickly, and I therefore reluctantly accept that the decision should be made by a referendum.
I am, however, concerned by the structure which is being forced on those who will be campaigning, by the strait jacket which I suggest the White Paper is beginning to impose. My right hon. Friend the Lord President, in his opening speech, talked about two umbrella organisations. He also used the words "the two sides" as if there were two sides in a General Election campaign. This is not the case. My reasons for wishing to see continued British membership are quite different from those of the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths), who seems to be one of the most eccentric spokesmen whom the right hon. Lady the Leader of the Opposition could have appointed to speak on this subject.
Similarly my hon. Friends who take a different view from mine do so because they are honestly convinced that we shall more easily achieve the objects of a more prosperous Britain and a more socially just Britain outside the Community than inside. I do not doubt their motives. They clearly have quite different motives from those of the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten), or of the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), or of the Scottish National Party or the National Front.
I respect my hon. Friends' opinions. I know they have honest motives. But I am depressed at the way in which, by the White Paper, they are to be forced to agree with this very motley crew, with 2,000 words on why they think we should come out, and then apparently have to find agreed answers to a number of questions. They will at least have the consolation of knowing that those who think as I do will have to find an agreed text with the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds if this strait jacket is maintained. We should all be able to campaign freely and to state our opinions, and I hope there will be arrangements, for example for a free post. But I hope we shall not be forced into a strait jacket of two sides.
I hope that the proposal in paragraph 30, the so-called Australian solution, will

be dropped. It is called the Australian solution because it is the method used in Australian referenda. I hope it will be dropped because the situation in this country is quite different from that in Australia where referenda take place on matters in which there is a clear difference across the Floor of the Australian Parliament between the parties. The two sets of arguments are drawn up by a majority of the supporters on one side and a majority of the supporters on the other side of the House. The division is clear along party lines in the Australian context. It is not clear in the context of the United Kingdom.
I believe that the imposition of the Australian system on the United Kingdom in paragraph 30 of my right hon. Friend's White Paper will put quite unnecessary strains on our political system in the months which lie ahead. On that particular green edge I hope that my right hon. Friends will think again and will see whether we can find a more satisfactory method before we reach the referendum in June.

10.50 p.m.

Mr. David Walder: Every speech I have heard in the debate so far has convinced me of the difficulties inherent in trying to combine our accepted system of parliamentary democracy and the running of a referendum. In a sense I am rather sorry for the Government. I am certainly sorry for some Ministers.
It is interesting to think of the origin of this referendum. There were a number of people who were opposed to the Common Market some time back and who thought that, if there were a referendum, the people of Britain would vote against the Common Market. The idea grew. It became a popular cry in the ranks of the Labour Party when Labour was in opposition. It sounded good— "We should take the opinion of the people."
Since those days, when the leaders of the three main political parties were all in favour of entry into the Common Market, many people— I do not wish to mention any names— have come a long way. The Government are now in the position that I am in on a Saturday morning with my dog. I feed my dog regularly, but on Saturday it gets a bone. I know— I do not know whether my dog


knows— that its normal meals are of more value than the bone, but having given it a rather valueless bone it is very difficult to get it away from it. That is the position of Ministers now. They are stuck with the idea of having a referendum.
We all know now the results of the negotiations which have taken place at Dublin. They convince me of how wise I was when I said a long time ago, before our entry into the Common Market— it was printed in the Sunday Times by way of criticism— "Let us get into the organisation first and negotiate afterwards." That is precisely what the Prime Minister has been doing, although I am sure that what he has been doing will be represented to us all as a great triumph.
Anyhow, the referendum if it takes place will mean that we abdicate our responsibility in the House. There is a more important point than that. I will not go as far as my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley) and accept the total decline of Members of Parliament which he particularised in a rather embarrassing way. I will merely say that it is an attempt by the Government to abdicate their responsibility.
No longer can we have that situation which we all know about at election meetings when people say to candidates "Your party did such-and-such. Your Government did such-and-such and we hold you to account." Now if that is said to a member of the Labour Party who is in office he can say Of course not. We did not make the decision. You did. We threw the issue out to the people." This is a reversal of the burden of government. It is dangerous. It is also an attempt to abdicate responsibility.
I am not very concerned about the details of the referendum because, as the House will have gathered, I regard the whole referendum as something of a sham. It is a bogus exercise. I am not very concerned about how it is carried out.
I am not in favour of a constituency count, for the very obvious reason that, even though Members of the House were to vote according to constituency results, there could be a majority of the country voting in the opposite direction.
Those who argue in favour of the referendum as the improved system by which one takes the voice of the people

and then say that it should be brought down to constituency level seem to me to be embarking on a course of extreme illogicality.
I fear that the House will allow the referendum to go forward. I hope that it will not. I shall certainly vote against it. If the House does allow it, very well; let the bandwagon go on; let us have the national count at Earls Court or perhaps at the Albert Hall and then the great result will be announced, whether by the Prime Minister or by some borrowed star of stage, screen or contemporary television I know not.
My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Drake (Miss Fookes) was worried about the interpretation of the vote and the result of the referendum. I can reassure her. She has no need to worry, because we all know what the present Prime Minister wants to do and what he intends to do, and I am sure that we can leave the interpretation of the result of the referendum to him, too.

10.55 p.m.

Mr. Bryan Gould: As one who believes that there is a respectible— indeed, a powerful— case for the referendum on this issue, I congratulate the Government on their White Paper. I believe that many people in this country will see it as a means of fulfilling not only this Government's election pledge, but the dishonoured pledge of the former Conservative Government.
In the few minutes available to me, I should like to try to deal with the argument that there is some special constitutional difficulty in the way of holding a referendum in this country. No one disputes that our entry into the Common Market means a fundamental change in the way that we govern ourselves and a fundamental redefinition of our legislature.
Countries with written constitutions are able to bring about a change of that kind by following the prescribed procedures. Those procedures often involve a two-thirds majority or a referendum.
We have an unwritten constitution, so it is not possible to follow prescribed procedures. Nevertheless we have a constitution. We have rules which define this Parliament, which govern our functions as Members and so on. Those rules,


logically, take priority over the institution of this Parliament and Government. They rest, therefore not on the will of this Parliament but on the political realities which underlie it. It follows that this Parliament alone cannot be sure that it has the competence to change those rules, because it is a creature of them.
We can be sure of changing the rules only if we can see that the political realities have changed. In a democracy, how better to discover that than to ask the people. That is the powerful and, indeed, positive case for a referendum on this issue.
In the two or three minutes remaining I should like to try to deal with one or two of the major points of detail that arise on the White Paper. I am worried about the pieces of paper which will come to people through the free post. I have no quarrel with the document which will set out the case for either side, but I am concerned about the abridged version of the White Paper. That seems to be open to objection on a number of grounds. First, it reinforces a regrettable precedent, established by the previous Government, of using taxpayers' money to promote a particular political and partisan cause, notwithstanding that it happens not to coincide with the divisions of party politics.
Secondly, it ensures that the voters in the referendum will be guaranteed to receive an imbalance of material, whichever way the White Paper comes down, which will support one side rather than the other. It is one thing for the voters to seek out such information for themselves, but quite another for there to be certainty that they will be biased and unfairly informed in that way.
Thirdly, there seems to be revealed a misunderstanding or at least a confusion, about the rôle of the Government in this matter. The Government in this context could simply mean the executive agency which is responsible for organising the vote. But it also means a partisan majority of the Cabinet on this issue. I do not believe that the Government have thought through this ambiguity. I suggest that they should look at it again.
On the wording of the question, the argument is that the words "stay in "

must remain because they reflect the fact that this country is already a member of the Common Market. But that is a non sequitur best illustrated if we imagine that we had a vote before joining the Common Market. Is it seriously argued that the question then would have been, "Should we stay out of the Common Market? "because that reflected the status quo? Of course not. The question would have been, "Should we join the Common Market? ". The change would have been proposed in that question. The pro-Marketeers cannot have it both ways. I favour a question which specifically offers the two choices— stay in or come out.
I trust the good faith of the Government in this matter, but I believe that they should pay particular attention to the points that I have made.
I do not believe that anyone wants a cry of "Foul" once the decision of the people has been given on this matter. Therefore, I believe that the Government are to be congratulated on their White Paper and on fulfilling yet another election pledge.

11.0 p.m.

Mr. John Peyton: I am always very sorry for anyone who finds himself obliged to squeeze what would have been an excellent speech into a few minutes, and I must tell the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Gould) that he was rash in the repository he chose for his trust.
I am sorry that today we have not heard more of those people who make a habit of detracting from the worth of Parliament, because we have had a remarkable debate. I hope that even Ministers who are very busy might find the time to read speeches which have been made from their own side of the House.
It was impossible not to feel a great deal of sympathy with the Leader of the House when he opened the debate. He had, after all, to present us with a fairly stodgy diet and he did his utmost to oblige the House and to give as much information as possible.
He referred to the fact that the White Paper had been described by the Prime Minister as having very green edges, but he did not do much to relieve our


anxieties about the colour of the middle and did not exactly carry us away when he made one or two interesting points about the argument they had plainly had about how the question should be formulated— the choice between "going in ", "being in ", or "staying in ". So far as the choice matters, the Government were probably marginally right to choose "staying in ".
We probably all applauded the right hon. Gentleman's determination to avoid over-burdening the ballot paper, but one point I would like to make is about the question of voting by people who work overseas, particularly in Europe. The right hon. Gentleman got into one of those slight confusions to which we are all subject, when he said that, of course, if they applied for postal votes they could have them. For people who are overseas, the proxy vote is the appropriate one. I hope that he will look hard at this serious point.
It is worthy of mention that, showing rather more than his master's candour he used the words: "We do not wish it "— that is the referendum— "to be used for their own purposes by those who wish to divide the United Kingdom." He went on to say," We are not concerned with what Northern Ireland thinks," in words hardly felicitous for the occasion.
He told us that the Government had done a feasibility study. I hope that before long we shall be let into a knowledge of some of the conclusions reached in that study because this operation means more and more in its lack of realism, rather than the reverse.
He went on to refer to the extent to which bodies on each side can coalesce into what he unhappily called umbrella groupings. What part umbrella groupings can usefully play in this contest I do not know, but the right hon. Gentleman went on to say that they will write their own case. It seems an academic exercise, and how umbrella organisations can be drilled rapidly into that kind of disciplinary exercise I do not know.
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, in a very welcome first contribution in that rôle, received a well-earned tribute from the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English), who said that her speech was very different

from that which had been made by the Leader of the House. That was a comment with which all of us of the Opposition were prepared warmly to agree. My right hon. Friend was quite clear about two particular points, and I should like to repeat them now. The first was that before we had ever advanced on such a device as a referendum there should have been far more mature consideration as to where it would lead and how it should be done. As the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose) said, the conclusion we are now left with is that the Government are incapable of making a decision on this very important issue. As my right hon. Friend said, what it amounts to is that we are passing the buck to the people. That is a very shameful thing for the House of Commons to do.
In a most interesting intervention, the Minister of State, Privy Council Office, agreed with some vigour that he would be very ready to pick and choose fixed subjects for future referenda. This let the cat effectively out of the bag.
The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Liberal Party— I am sorry that he is not in the Chamber at present— asked a most wounding question of the Government. Why, he asked, had they changed their view. He made things much worse by borrowing from the right hon. Lady who looks after prices her explanation, which was that the party simply could not have stood up to the pressures which would have resulted from inaction or the failure to find a device such as this. The right hon. Gentleman asked what was the test of uniqueness. We shall look forward very much to receiving from the Minister when he winds up an answer to that question.
It is fantastic that the Government should say, first, that this is a very important issue but then subsequently that it is not an issue on which they ought to be called upon to resign. If ever any Government yielded to the temptation and to the greed that they could both have their cake and eat it, the present Government have done it on this occasion.
The hon. Member for Newport (Mr. Hughes)— who is also not in the Chamber at present— is always one to lend himself to one or two flights of fancy. He


accused everyone of all kinds of arm twisting. He went so far as to suggest that industrial companies do not owe a duty to explain to their employees where, in their view, the interests of the company and, therefore, the prospects of employment lie. I hope that we shall not hear too much of that kind of argument. I mention it only in order to show what a dangerous and menacing thing it is to freedom of expression.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Wood) asked the serious question: is this European issue unique and how can we possibly limit the use of this device to this particular issue? I warmly agreed with him when he said, first, that there is no evidence that our constituents are falling over themselves to take part in this exercise. I hope very much that he will receive some answer from the Government how they view the effect of the actions which we are now taking both upon other people outside this country and upon our own children and the future of us all.
The hon. Member for Blackley, to whom I have already referred, said in a bold and courageous speech that from his point of view it was better that we should put up with this device rather than turn our backs on Europe. At the end of his speech he called for a decision by the Cabinet saying that the referendum is destroying the principle of Cabinet responsibility. I hope that the Government will absorb that. I hope that they will realise that these attacks are not coming from my right hon. and hon. Friends but again and again from their own supporters.
The hon. Member for Nottingham, West objected to paragraphs 31 and 33 of the White Paper— in other words, the rather strange provisions that are being made for the provision of an information centre and the loose and hopeful arrangements— they are very sloppy— for television and radio.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) raised an interesting question. He referred to the Prime Minister's statement of 23rd January in the White Paper, when he said that the Government will
 decide upon their own recommendation 
and announce it to the House. The Prime Minister said that that would provide

the opportunity for a debate of substance. My right hon. Friend asked whether the Government would ask the House to endorse their decision before setting in motion the referendum procedure. He pointed out rightly that if the Government did not do so they would be going over the head of Parliament.
My right hon. Friend was not present at the time, but he received a clear answer from the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh). He told my right hon. Friend— I hope that he had the authority of the Government and I hope that the Minister will be in a position to confirm this— that there would be a debate before the referendum machinery was set in motion and that there would be a free vote in the House. That would be a very interesting matter to put to the nation.
Then we had a brave speech from the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy). He first made clear the extent to which those who had quarrelled with their party had been roughed up in the process. He described how they had had to win their way back to grace. He said that those who took us into Europe had explained their position and had taken a stand, and that the onus was now on those who wanted to take us out. He said:
 I cannot see how the Government can avoid resigning if the country goes against its recommendations or how any of its supporters can avoid seeing that its recommendations are supported. They will have to go out into the country and campaign for it. I suspect that many of us are only just facing up to the implications of the referendum and that the Cabinet realised them only a few weeks ago ".
I salute the hon. Gentleman for having had the courage to say those things. They deserve to be written large into the record of this debate.
I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) will excuse me if I say that I do not entirely agree with everything that he said. I am afraid that I missed his speech. I was especially interested in what he said about the need for some kind of commission to hear complaints during the conduct of this unprecedented operation.
Next, I turn to the remarks of the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton). I am sorry that it seems necessary before saluting Labour hon. Members for their courage and other


qualities to give them due notice so as to attract them into the Chamber. The hon. Gentleman said that the House will never be the same again after the referendum. He suggested that it is being held for the sake of preserving unity. He said that it was a device to keep the party together. He regretted that the debate was taking place. He claimed that the referendum is a hotch-potch that has been flung at us by the Government. I am glad to see that the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown) is present. In a similar speech he said that the referendum would be of no great service to the people. He added that the way to consult the people would be to have a General Election. The hon. Member said that the Government could hear the voice of the people in this way on other matters, that the people would soon be asking that we proceed with referenda on questions which they would propose, and that there would be no end to the process. He said that if we wanted to know what the people wanted we should find out in the time-honoured way and hold a General Election.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon), in a very clear and able speech, said that it was crucial that in its own interests this country should remain a member of the Community. I warmly endorse his comment that it is a farce for Ministers to go campaigning in different directions. He advocated, and I support him, that we should have a recess to enable M.P.s to take part in the campaign. What a hollow mockery, what a farce it would be, if, in addition to having a stupid device that none of us really trusts, we were then to be locked up here looking after sonic of the Government's dreary legislation, unable to take part in the campaign and inhibited from participating in what the Government agree is a historic process.
The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Lambie) made a most interesting speech. He did not think much of this place. He wanted the breakers into the United Kingdom, and he was campaigning for a "No" vote. I dare say that he might be quite successful. My right hon. Friend the Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies) gave a most qualified welcome— the chilliest welcome that anyone could

give—to this nasty device. He said that if it offered a quick solution to the problem, let us have it and get it over as quickly as possible and get away from the humiliating rôle this country has been forced to play over the last year or so. No doubt much to the comfort of those who were listening to him on the Front Bench, the hon. Member for Bebington and Ellesmere Port (Mr. Bates) actually supported the party line. I think that no further comment is needed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley) rightly pointed out, as did other hon. Members, that this device will diminish the stature of the House of Commons. The hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian had no comfort whatever for his Ministers. Most of the important things that Governments do, he said, are not specifically authorised, and he referred to the pressures to which Labour Members were subjected when this issue had come before the House on a previous occasion. He asked the question that Ministers will eventually have to answer: how can Ministers carry out policies in which they do not believe? A Liberal hon. Member quoted the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on 18th April as saying that it was alien to our parliamentary system to adopt this course. We were told that the 1967 White Paper had said that it would be for Parliament to decide. There was one question in the Election Forum of 28th May 1970 to which the right hon. Gentleman gave, unusually, a very clear answer.
The questioner asked:
Is it correct to assume that if Mr. Wilson sees the polls are going against him, he will say at the last minute that he will allow a referendum on the Common Market? 
The Prime Minister said:
 The answer to that is no, I have given my answer many times. I do not change it because polls go either up or down. Heavens, when the polls have been 28 points against me it has not made any difference with going on with policies I knew to be unpopular.
That shows how little worth is to be attached to the solemn word of the Prime Minister given at a time when he was deliberately consulting the people in a General Election.
There are one or two points I should like to make myself about the referendum. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear ".] If that is the best that hon. Gentlemen can manage with all their skill and tactics, I


recognise just how deep an embarrassment they are in. One question to which I invite the Minister of State's attention is when and how the Government will make known their recommendation to the country. Will that statement accompany the statement of opposing views which is promised in paragraph 30 of the White Paper?
What of the poll? I refer back to the view of several hon. and right hon. Members that apparently in the Government's view neither the size of the poll nor the size of the majority is to matter. Should not the Government, even now, have further thoughts on that subject before it is too late?
Then there is the question of the electorate. Again I ask the Minister of State to answer clearly who will be entitled to proxy votes. Will those who are currently working in Europe, for instance, be disfranchised, or will they enjoy a right to participate? The Secretary of State for Trade seems to think that that is unimportant, and that the views of those people should be disregarded. If he thinks that, I hope that he will stand up and say so. I shall be delighted to give way.
The first time I can recall having seen in print a mention of the practice of issuing election addresses is in the White Paper. It is said that something analogous to an election address will be produced during the campaign. Who will write that address? Who will circulate it? To whom will it be addressed and who will write the addresses on the envelopes?
There is then the question of expenditure. We are told that there will be no limit. That is a sign of thoroughly sloppy thinking.

Mr. Gerry Fowler: The right hon. Gentleman's latest remarks are a sign of thoroughly sloppy reading. The White Paper makes clear, as did my right hon. Friend, that the Post Office is willing to co-operate and that there will be delivery to houses.

Mr. Peyton: It is news to me that the Post Office will be kindly writing the addresses on every envelope.

Mr. Fowler: Mr. Fowler rose—

Mr. Peyton: The hon. Gentleman will have time to answer when he makes his speech.
Two documents are promised. One is the statement which will be written by the umbrella organisations, accompanied or not by the Government's statement. The other is the document which is analogous to the election address. If the Minister will read his White Paper he will find references to those documents, and I hope that he will explain them. There is also the question of public funds. One wonders to whom these are to be made available and what safeguards there are to be.
To sum up, we regard the referendum as a dodge adopted by the Prime Minister against his own previously-expressed view. The House will recall his view that he thought it right for Parliament to take the decision. It was a dodge taken without too much regard either for the interests of Parliament or for the interests of our country. It was taken simply to get the Labour Party out of some wretched jam into which his own folly had plunged him.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: The right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) failed to mention the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Moray and Nairn (Mrs. Ewing). Will he care to state the Conservative Party's policy on whether there should be a separate count for Scotland and Wales?

Mr. Peyton: I am currently dealing with the Government's policy.

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: Answer.

Mr. Peyton: Indeed, I mildly congratulate myself on having cut down my remarks by not referring at length to what the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mrs. Ewing) said. The course upon which the Government are now embarked is one to which they have given very little thought. As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said, what we have here is a new method of validating law.
The Government in their White Paper make no mention whatever of the fact that this country is a signatory to a solemn treaty obligation. Are we to learn


from that fact— indeed are others overseas to learn from it?— that the Government do not regard the treaty obligations as a serious matter? Are they now saying to the world, "This country will always be guided by its own short-term material interests "? If they are saying that, I recommend them to take the advice of the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch— namely that the way to consult the people is to have a General Election and to get the verdict which they richly deserve.

11.29 p.m.

The Minister of State, Privy Council Office (Mr. Gerald Fowler): The right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) has shown his usual determination never to let the blazing sun of his argument be clouded by wit or subtlety. He regaled us this evening with a catalogue of the other speeches made in this fascinating debate— except for the speech made by the hon. Lady the Member for Moray and Nairn (Mrs. Ewing) to which I shall allude later.
The right hon. Gentleman may not have noticed that if the Post Office delivers one document to each household, or two documents together, thus reducing the cost of delivery, there is no need for envelopes, and therefore it is unnecessary to address any envelopes.
The right hon. Gentleman also asked me whether there would be proxy votes for those in Europe. The Government will seriously consider whether postal votes for those on holiday, and proxy votes for those abroad, can be arranged. But it would be a complex operation, and we should incur high cost in doing it.

Mr. Peyton: The Leader of the House said that if those abroad applied for postal votes they would have them.

Mr. Fowler: I did not hear my right hon. Friend say that. The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that there are no postal votes for those abroad. Therefore, as I correctly said, we are considering whether proxy votes might be made available for those in Europe and elsewhere.
I do not see why the right hon. Gentleman is so concerned with those in Europe specifically. What about those in other parts of the world, such as Hong Kong? Nor do I see why the right hon. Gentleman

is specifically concerned, as he appeared to be, with those who were abroad last 10th October and who are still abroad. He did not mention those who were abroad on that date and who have therefore not registered in this country, but have since returned. They are not entitled to a proxy vote, on present arrangements.

Mr. Grieve: Would it not be possible to arrange for Britons living abroad to vote at their nearest consulate, embassy or high commission?

Mr. Fowler: The Government are considering the matter, as I have said.

Mr. Cyril Smith: Mr. Cyril Smithrose—

Mr. Fowler: I cannot spend all my time giving way, but, as this will clearly be a weighty intervention, I do so this once.

Mr. Smith: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, because I shall be going into the Lobby to support the Government on this issue. I have been consistently in favour of a referendum on Europe since 1970. But I would point out that if the referendum is held in the week beginning 21st June certain constituencies, of which mine is one, will be on their annual wake's week holiday. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury is in the same position. I urge the Government to reconsider the date of the referendum or to give our constituents the right to express an opinion on the matter through the postal vote.

Mr. Fowler: I have given an assurance on the matter. The hon. Gentleman is right. One or two Lancashire towns will be having their wake's week in the week beginning 21st June.

Mr. Smith: Disgraceful. I shall vote against the Government if they do not alter the arrangement.

Mr. Fowler: I congratulate the Leader of the Opposition on her maiden speech in that capacity. I think that I am the first Minister to have a chance to do so. I am sure that I speak for the whole House when I say that she graced the Dispatch Box in her new role. However, she showed signs of excessive legalism. Constitutional law is not susceptible to the laws governing natural science. It is not immutable. I thought that on occasions the right hon. Lady


erred in the direction of saying that we must never change anything, and that what was good enough for our fathers must be good enough for us.
The right hon. Lady also argued that the Government had no mandate for a referendum, on the ground that the Labour Party received 38 per cent. of the vote in the last election. But the Conservative Party, in the 1970 General Election, received 46 per cent. of the vote — still short of 50 per cent. What is the distinction between 38 per cent. and 46 per cent.— [Interruption.] Then apparently we have a new doctrine from the Opposition, namely, that somewhere between 46 per cent. and 38 per cent. there lies a line on one side of which the party has a mandate and on the other side of which it has not. That is nonsense. But what is clear is that in the past two General Elections, the Labour Party fought on the basis of putting this issue to the people, whereas in 1970 the Conservative Party fought the General Election on the basis of negotiating for entry to the Common Market— no more and no less.
The issue of the mandate is clear. We have a mandate. The Conservative Party did not have.
The Leader of the Opposition said that she did not like the phrase "full-hearted consent ". It was not the Labour Party which invented it. What is more, if it be argued that by that phrase the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) meant only Parliament, I should love the right hon. Lady to explain why it was that he said
 the full-hearted consent of the British Parliament and people.
The right hon. Lady argued that representative parliamentary government was incompatible with referenda. But surely she cannot have meant to suggest that Australia, New Zealand, Denmark, Norway and a host of other Western countries did not have representative parliamentary democracies. Perhaps the closest example to our own system is that of New Zealand. What is most interesting about that is that each referendum is preceded by an enabling Act, just as this referendum will be.
My hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh)

said that referenda in New Zealand were used for trivial issues like conscription. Many of us would not regard that as a trivial issue. But we have to come to terms with the fact that each country makes its own destiny. If referenda are used in one representative parliamentary democracy for one set of purposes, that does not mean that they cannot be used in another for another set of purposes.
The right hon. Member for Finchley argued that the Government should resign if the result of the referendum did not accord with their recommendation. She and others quoted the Norwegian example. However, the situation that we are in is nothing like that which obtained in the referendum in Norway. We have said that we will be bound by the will of the people expressed in the referendum. That is why it is unnecessary, if the people do not accept our recommendation, for the Government to resign.

Mr. F. A. Burden: The hon. Gentleman made it clear that there might follow other occasions on which referenda would be used. Is he suggesting that on any occasion when the Labour Party is likely to be driven apart, that will be used as an opportunity to have a referendum, in order to try to solve the problem?

Mr. Fowler: No, Sir. That is exactly what I am not suggesting. The argument has been adduced by the right hon. Member for Finchley and others that the purpose of this referendum is primarily to conceal splits in the Labour Party. That view was not shared by all who spoke today from the Opposition benches. The right hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) gave rather a different explanation. He said that the fault, if fault it be, lay with the Conservative Party, first, for taking us into the EEC without the authority of the people and, secondly, for setting the precedent by having a border poll in Northern Ireland. We have heard no refutation of that by the Conservative Party.
The best answer was given by my hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. MacFarquhar). As he said, the way in which this constitutional question differs from all others is that in practice, after we have been in the EEC for a number


of years, the process has become irreversible. We cannot as a Parliament concede powers, least of all those which are irreversible, without specific consultation with the people. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh) argued that we have given away sovereignty to large parts of the world, and that is right, but we have not given away sovereignty over ourselves irreversibly without the specific consultation of the people which we are proposing, except in the 1972 European Communities Act.

Mr. Peter Blaker: rose—

Mr. Fowler: I cannot spend the entire time allowed for my speech in giving way. I have been asked a number of questions.

Hon. Members: Give way

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister must be allowed to put the case.

Mr. Fowler: The right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) argued that this is nor. a unique constitutional issue and that the "secession of Scotland or of Wales would also be of great constitutional significance". I think the whole House agrees with that. I am not aware which party, except some hon. Gentleman behind the right hon. Gentleman, is proposing the secession of Scotland and Wales. If the right hon. Gentleman means devolution, that is not of the same significance as the issue of membership of the Common Market.

Mr. Thorpe: The hon. Gentleman did not listen carefully to what I said. No one suggests that anyone but the Nationalists are in favour of secession. I was saying that secession is just as important a constitutional issue as Europe. Are we to take it that the Labour Party is in favour of a referendum on Europe but not in favour of a referendum on secession? If that be the case, it shows how cynical they are.

Mr. Fowler: I was unaware that we had to date seriously considered the secession of Scotland and Wales. For once I am sure that I speak for both major parties when I say that we have no intention of doing so.
Perhaps I can turn to some of the other questions that I was asked. I deal first with a minor one. I was asked by the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten), whose speech, irrespective of one's own position on the basic issue, was excellent, whether there would be a referendum in the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man. The answer is that there is nothing to prevent them from holding their own referenda if they wish. There is no proposal that their votes should be aggregated with those of the United Kingdom, for constitutional reasons of which the hon. Gentleman will be aware.

Mr. Peter Rost: Mr. Peter Rost (Derbyshire, South)rose—

Mr. Fowler: I cannot give way, because I have a number of questions to answer.
I was asked about the count and perhaps I ought to deal with that first, though it means taking things in reverse order. During my right hon. Friend's speech the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) shouted from a seated position "We bloody well should be concerned with what Wales, and so on, think ". Of course we are concerned with what Wales thinks, but why do we need to record the Welsh vote separately on what is essentially a United Kingdom issue? Our minds are not closed on how the count shall be conducted, whether nationally, on a constituency basis, on a district or county basis, or however it may be done, but I must make it clear that I share the view of many right hon. and hon. Members that this referendum should not be used for a covert purpose beyond that which is said to be its purpose.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: The hon. Gentleman has mentioned me and I am obliged to him. The reason why we believe that Wales and Scotland need this result at this time is that, by the Government's programme, we will have assemblies in Scotland and Wales within the next two to three years which may well have a direct relationship with the EEC in a manner similar to the relationship which Bavaria and other constituent parts of Europe have with the EEC. In that event the opinion of the people of Scotland and Wales will be of vital importance to those in Brussels and


Strasbourg. That is why we believe the referendum should take place in this way.

Mr. Fowler: I do not know where the hon. Gentleman gets the idea that people in Scotland and Wales will have direct relationships with Brussels in the way in which other assemblies do. I do not know to which other assemblies he is referring.
The Scottish National Party suggested that the whole argument was in favour of a constituency count. Here, at last, I refer to the speech of the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn. This is a national decision, to be taken by a national constituency. We do not want a back-door decision on other issues to be taken through the referendum as a result of a count in Scotland or Wales or on a constituency or county basis. Our minds are not closed on this issue and we are prepared to consider the points put to us.
I hope I have made clear that there are sound reasons why we should count nationally. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bebington and Ellesmere Port (Mr. Bates) pointed out, quite rightly, we stay in or come out on a national basis.

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: Mrs. Winifred Ewing rose—

Mr. Fowler: The hon. Lady spoke in the debate. She has had her crack of the whip.

Mr. Henderson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As Chief Whip of the Scottish National Party I resent that remark.

Mr. Fowler: Before leaving the subject of Scotland may I refer to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Lambie). He said that opinion polls showed that Scotland would clearly vote "No ". Hon. Members will be interested in yesterday's Glasgow Herald which revealed that the gap between the voting intentions of the people in Scotland had narrowed in one month from 16 per cent. to 9 per cent. If I were my hon. Friend I would not be so confident that I would necessarily be on the winning side.
I turn to the Government's recommendation and the White Paper. The White Paper will be published as soon as possible. The right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion asked me whether the

House would be given an opportunity to express a view on the White Paper before the referendum was held. The answer is "Yes ". I must reject the right hon. Member's view that the Government would be appealing over the head of Parliament were that not to be so. It is not for me to say whether there will be a free vote following that debate.

Mr. Amery: Can the hon. Gentleman give us an assurance that the debate will be on a Government motion asking us to approve the Government recommendation?

Mr. Fowler: I can give no indication of the procedure that will be adopted. The House has a way of making its views known, whatever the procedure. Tonight's vote will be on the motion for the Adjournment.
I turn now to the Government information centre. I listened carefully to the objections to this and I give an undertaking that we shall carefully consider them before making up our minds. I must point out that there has to be some means of answering purely factual questions, not least about the referendum.
As for the idea of a popular White Paper, I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Newport (Mr. Hughes) opposes the notion of a popular White Paper. It is only a popular version of a White Paper, and White Papers are very familiar animals in politics. Sometimes they are published whole in the newspapers. There seems, therefore, no great precedent against the notion of a popular White Paper, and certainly there is no objection to civil servants working on such a White Paper. They work on every White Paper, and if the hon. Gentleman does not believe that, he is guilty of considerable naivety.
I was asked about television and radio during the referendum campaign. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) suggested that paragraphs 33 and 34 of the White Paper were obscure. I do not share that view. They should be set in the context of the first sentence of paragraph 32, which reads:
 The Government have considered whether any special arrangements are needed either to limit or to assist activities by outside bodies and individuals designed to inform the public of their views on the issues involved in the referendum.


Paragraphs 33 and 34 in essence say that we are satisfied that the normal control operated during a General Election will suffice here, too.

Mr. William Molloy: Can my hon. Friend state whether the Government are considering the contemptible intervention by international civil servants such as Messrs. Thomson and Soames in a British affair, and will he ensure that when the referendum takes place the normal high standards of senior British civil servants are adhered to by the civil servants of Brussels?

Mr. Fowler: It would be exceedingly difficult to prevent any British citizen not himself in the direct employ of Her Majesty's Government from exercising the right of free speech in this country.
May I now turn to the wording of the questions. I noted carefully everything that has been said in the debate today, and we shall again go over carefully all the suggestions which have been made. I should like to comment briefly on the question of "be "or" stay" in the European Community. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West, on another piece of wording, said that we ought to get the technicalities right. So we should. My view is that it would be nonsense to ask whether we should be in the European Community when we are in the European Community. The word, therefore, should be "stay ".
As for a third question on the ballot paper, whether the decision should be left to Members of Parliament, I must resist that. Frankly, such a question would be a nullity. The final decision will be for this House in any event after the referendum. There is no point in asking an additional question to get the assent of the electorate to our doing what we shall have to do in any event.
As for the question about the words "European Community "and whether" European Economic Community "or" European Communities "might not be preferable, what my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West said was basically right. The point, however, is that the words "European Community" are now used widely in communiqués from Brussels. They are used by Heads of Government. The question whether it is strictly legal for three communities which have common organs is scarcely

the point because we cannot belong to one community withtout belonging to all three. The only reason, therefore, for preferring the singular is that the plural might well mislead.

Mr. Buchan: Mr. Buchan rose—

Mr. Fowler: I will not give way with only five minutes of the debate left.
We shall, however, consider all these suggestions, including the suggestion that "Common Market" might be added in brackets on the ballot paper.
The hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. Thomas) suggested that control of expenditure should be the same as in a general election. The great difficulty about the control of expenditure in a referendum is precisely that it is not the same as a General Election, in that there are no candidates. They are the organs through which expenditure in a general election is controlled. There are no parallel organs in a referendum.
It was suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Newport that we should ban Press advertising. We are certainly prepared to ban, as in a General Election, paid canvassers and the use of hire cars to drive electors to the polls. It would be unwise to go further than that. We certainly do not want to act in such a way as to encourage a low poll. In any event, paid advertising is not all that a newspaper contains and it would prove well-nigh impossible to control what appears in news columns or letters columns or editorials of newspapers.
The suggestion that we should ensure equality of paid advertising, with the Government in some way making up the deficit to any organisation that could not afford to take up its full share, would mean the Government incurring an open-ended cost. We could not agree to that.
One hon. Member asked whether the House might recess for the period of the referendum. My right hon. Friend will certainly give consideration to that, but I can give no undertaking whatsoever.
The House will appreciate that the timetable for the referendum operation is very tight indeed. Some aspects require preparatory work well in advance. Planning is going ahead on the basis of the proposals in the White Paper in certain respects. To be specific, where they are unavoidable at this stage, commitments in respect of poll cards, paper


for the Central Office of Information, and the preliminary reservation of Earls Court, are being entered into to enable us to keep to the timetable. If we were not to do that now, it would be impossible to keep to the timetable.
I was asked another set of questions about the two umbrella organisations. The principal point I want to make clear is that the parasol introduced into the debate by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose) is not one of those umbrellas, and I deplore any reference to the National Front in the debates we shall be having over the coming months. I hope that this will be a campaign conducted fairly and cleanly and that at the end of the day we shall get a clear verdict from the British people.
The difference between the Labour Party and the Tory Party is, in essence, this: at the 1970 election the Tories

promised Britain that they would not enter the EEC without the full-hearted consent of the British Parliament and the British people. They reneged on that promise. Today the right hon. Lady the Leader of the Opposition suggested that in any event the British people should not be consulted, that we here know best.

We in the Labour Party believe that on such a profound constitutional issue we do not necessarily know best, that after all the years of debate the people know best, that the people shall have their say, and that we shall respect the will of the people. I think that the Tory Party has shown itself in the debate today to be profoundly undemocratic. We shall honour the pledges we gave at two general elections. We will not renege on those pledges.

Question put, That this House do now adjourn:—

The House divided: Ayes 262, Noes 312.

Division No. 141.]
AYES
[12 midnight


Adley, Robert
Critchley, Julian
Hall, Sir John


Aitken, Jonathan
Crouch, David
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.


Alison, Michael
Crowder, F. P.
Hamilton Michael (Salisbury)


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)
Hampson, Dr Keith


Arnold, Tom
Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Hannam, John


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)


Awdry, Daniel
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss


Baker, Kenneth
du Conn, Rt Hon Edward
Hastings, Stephen


Banks, Robert
Durant, Tony
Havers, Sir Michael


Beith, A. J.
Dykes, Hugh
Hawkins, Paul


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Hayhoe, Barney


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Heseltine, Michael


Benyon, W.
Elliott, Sir William
Hicks, Robert


Berry, Hon Anthony
Emery, Peter
Higgins, Terence L.


Biffen, John
Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Holland, Philip


Biggs-Davison, John
Eyre Reginald
Hordern, Peter


Blaker, Peter
Fairbairn, Nicholas
Howe, Rt Hn Sir Geoffrey 


Boscawen, Hon. Robert
Fairgrieve, Russell
Howell, David (Guildford)


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Fell, Anthony
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Boyson, Dr. Rhodes (Brent)
Finsberg, Geoffrey
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)


Braine, Sir Bernard
Fisher, Sir Nigel
Hunt, John


Brittan, Leon
Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Hurd, Douglas


Brotherton, Michael
Fookes, Miss Janet
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Fowler, Norman (Sutton C 'f' d)
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)


Bryan, Sir Paul
Fox, Marcus 
James, David


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd &amp; W'df'd)


Buck, Antony
Freud, Clement
Jessel, Toby


Budgen, Nick
Galbraith Hon. T. G. D.
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)


Bulmer, Esmond
Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)


Burden, F. A.
Gardiner, Edward (S Fylde)
Jopling, Michael


Carlisle, Mark
Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith


Carr, Rt Hon Robert

Kaberry, Sir Donald


Channon, Paul
Gilmour. Sir John (East Fife)
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


Churchill, W. S.
Glyn, Dr Alan
Kershaw, Anthony


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Goodhew, Victor
Kilfedder, James


Clark, William (Croydon S)
Goodlad, Alastair
Kimball, Marcus


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Gorst, John
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)


Clegg, Walter
Gow, lan (Eastbourne)
King, Tom (Bridgwater)


Cockcrott, John
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Knight, Mrs Jill


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Gray, Hamish
Knox, David


Cope, John
Grieve, Percy
Lamont, Norman


Cordle, John H.
Griffiths, Eldon
Lane, David


Cormack, Patrick
Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Corrie, John
Grist, Ian
Latham, Michael (Melton)


Costain, A. P.
Grylls. Michael
Lawrence, Ivan




Lawson, Nigel
Osborn, John
Sproat, lain


Le Marchant, Spencer
Page, John (Harrow West)
Stainton, Keith


Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Pattie, Geoffrey
Stanley, John


Loveridge, John
Percival, Ian
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Luce, Richard
Peyton, Rt Hon John
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


McAdden, Sir Stephen
Pink, R. Bonner
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


McCrindle, Robert
Prior, Rt Hon James
Stokes, John


Macfarlane, Neil
Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Stradling Thomas, J.


MacGregor, John
Raison, Timothy
Tapsell, Peter


Mackintosh, John P.
Rathbone, Tim
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)


Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Tebbit, Norman


McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Madel, David
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Mates, Michael
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)


Mather, Carol
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)


Maude, Angus
Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Townsend, Cyril D.


Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald
Ridsdale, Julian
Trotter, Neville


Mawby, Ray
Rifkind, Malcolm
Tugendhat, Christopher


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Mayhew. Patrick
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Viggers, Peter


Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Mills, Peter
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)
Wakeham, John


Miscampbell, Norman
Royle, Sir Anthony
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Sainsbury, Tim
Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)


Monro, Hector
St. John-Stevas, Norman
Wall, Patrick


Montgomery, Fergus
Scott, Nicholas
Walters, Dennis


Moore, John (Croydon C)
Scott-Hopkins, James
Warren, Kenneth


More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Weatherill, Bernard


Morgan, Geraint
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)
Wells, John


Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral
Shelton, William (Streatham)
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Shepherd, Colin
Wiggin, Jerry


Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Shersby, Michael
Wigley, Dafydd


Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Silvester, Fred
Winterton, Nicholas


Neave, Airey
Sims, Roger
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Nelson, Anthony
Sinclair, Sir George
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Neubert, Michael
Skeet, T. H. H.
Younger, Hon George


Newton, Tony
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)



Normanton, Tom
Speed, Keith
TELLERS FOR THE AYES


Nott, John
Spence, John
Mr. Adam Butler and


Onslow, Cranley
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)
Mr. Cecil Parkinson


Oppenheim, Mrs Sally
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)





NOES


Abse, Leo
Cant, R. B.
Douglas-Mann, Bruce


Allaun, Frank
Carmichael, Neil
Duffy, A. E. P.


Anderson, Donald
Carter, Ray
Dunlop, John


Archer, Peter
Carter-Jones, Lewis
Dunn, James A.


Armstrong, Ernest
Cartwright, John
Dunnett, Jack


Ashley, Jack
Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Ashton, Joe
Clemitson, Ivor
Eadie, Alex


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)
Edelman, Maurice


Atkinson, Norman
Cohen, Stanley
Edge, Geoff


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Coleman, Donald
Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Colquhoun, Mrs Maureen
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)


Barrett, Guy (Greenwich)
Conlan, Bernard
English, Michael


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Ennals, David


Bates, Alf
Corbett, Robin
Evans, loan (Aberdare)


Bean, R. E.
Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Evans, John (Newton)


Bell, Ronald
Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Crawford, Douglas
Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Crawshaw, Richard
Farr, John


Bidwell, Sydney
Cronin, John
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E


Bishop, E. S.
Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony
Fitch, Alan (Wlgan)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Cryer, Bob
Flannery, Martin


Boardman, H.
Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)


Body, Richard
Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Fletcher Ted (Darlington)


Booth, Albert
Dalyell, Tam
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Davidson, Arthur
Ford, Ben


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Forrester, John


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)


Bradley, Tom
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Freeson, Reginald


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Deakins, Eric
Garrett, John (Norwich S)


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)


Buchan, Norman
de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
George, Bruce


Buchanan, Richard
Delargy, Hugh
Gilbert, Dr John


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Ginsburg, David


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Dempsey, James
Golding, John


Campbell, Ian
Doig, Peter
Goodhart, Philip


Canavan, Dennis
Dormand, J. D.
Gould, Bryan







Gourlay, Harry
Madden, Max
Shaw, Arnold (llford South)


Graham, Ted
Magee, Bryan
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Mahon, Simon
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Grant, John (Islington C)
Marks, Kenneth
Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)


Grocott, Bruce
Marquand, David
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Hardy, Peter
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C (Dulwich)


Harper, Joseph
Marten, Neil
Sillars, James


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mason,Rt Hon Roy
Silverman, Julius


Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Meacher, Michael
Skinner, Dennis


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Small, William


Hatton, Frank
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Hayman, Mrs Helene
Miller, Mrs Millie (llford N)
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Mitchell. R. C. (Soton, ltchen)
Snape, Peter


Heffer, Eric S.
Moate, Roger
Spearing, Nigel


Henderson, Douglas
Molloy, William
Spriggs, Leslie


Hooley, Frank
Molyneaux, James
Stallard, A. W.


Horam, John
Moonman, Eric
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


Howell, Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Stott, Roger


Huckfield, Les
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Strang, Gavin


Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Newens, Stanley
Swain, Thomas


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Noble, Mike
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Hunter, Adam
Oakes, Gordon
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Ogden, Eric
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
O'Halloran, Michael
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Janner, Greville
O'Malley, Rt Hon Brian
Thompson, George


Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Orbach, Maurice
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Jeger, Mrs Lena
Ovenden, John
Tierney, Sydney


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Padley, Walter
Tinn, James


Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)
Palmer, Arthur
Tomlinson, John


Johnson, James (Hull West)
Park, George
Tomney, Frank


Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Parker, John
Torney, Tom


Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Parry, Robert
Urwin, T. W.


Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Pavitt, Laurie
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Pearl, Rt Hon Fred
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Judd, Frank
Pendry, Tom
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Kaufman, Gerald
Penhaligon, David
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Kelley, Richard
Perry, Ernest
Ward, Michael


Kerr, Russell
Phipps, Dr Colin
Watkins, David


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch
Watkinson, John


Kinnock, Neil
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Watt, Hamish


Lambie, David
Prescott, John
Weetch, Ken


Lamborn, Harry
Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Weitzman, David


Lamond, James
Price, William (Rugby)
Wellbeloved, James


Leadbitter, Ted
Radice, Giles
Welsh, Andrew


Lee, John
Rees Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Lever, Rt Hon Harold
Reid, George
White, James (Pollok)


Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)
Richardson, Miss Jo
Whitehead, Phillip


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Whitlock, William


Lipton, Marcus
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Litterick, Tom
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Williams, Alan (Swansea W)


Lomas, Kenneth
Roderick, Caerwyn
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Loyden, Eddie
Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Luard, Evan
Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Lyon, Alexander (York)
Rooker, J. W.
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Roper, John
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Mabon, Dr J. Dickson
Rose, Paul B.
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


McCartney, Hugh
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


MacCormick, Iain
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)
Woodall, Alec


McElhone, Frank
Ross, William (Londonderry)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


MacFarquhar, Roderick
Rowlands, Ted
Young, David (Bolton E)


McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Ryman, John
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Mackenzie, Gregor
Sandelson, Neville



Maclennan, Robert
Sedgemore, Brian
Miss Margaret Jackson and


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Selby, Harry
Mr. David Stoddart.


McNamara, Kevin




Question accordingly negatived.

Orders of the Day — CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

12.14 a.m.

The Lord Advocate (Mr. Ronald King Murray): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
This is a consolidation Bill covering amendments relating to criminal procedure in Scotland contained in no fewer than 61 Acts of Parliament and Acts of Adjournal extending as far back as 1587. The Bill has been before the Joint Select Committee on Consolidation Bills and the Committee has made certain amendments to it. It has approved the inclusion of the Acts of Adjournal to render the consolidation intelligible. I am confident that this Bill, which is long awaited, will prove of great benefit to the courts and the practitioners involved in the criminal process in Scotland.
In Committee amendments will be moved to take account of the fact that references in the Bill to local health authorities are now to be read as references to local authorities following upon the reorganisation of the National Health Service in Scotland. These local authorities will from 16th May 1975 be the new authorities, taking over on local government reorganisation. Likewise, references to regional hospital boards will require to be replaced by references to health boards.
In moving that the Bill be read a Second time, I pay tribute to the work that has been done by the Parliamentary Draftsman and those who assisted him. It was a monumental task, and the consolidation that has been done will, I think, be of great benefit to the public in Scotland. This consolidation Bill amounts virtually to a code of criminal procedure for Scotland.

12.17 a.m.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: On behalf of my party I welcome the new magnum opus which has emerged from the Lord Advocate's Department. On reading the debate that took place in another place I noticed that the Bill received a presentation lasting only two

minutes. That does not seem sufficient for the amount of work which has obviously been carried out.
It has been observed that these consolidation measures are very often mere scissor and paste jobs. On looking at the Bill 1 would say that it has taken much more effort than that. As a law student I had to struggle through a lot of different references and a great number of Acts. In the courts I have suffered from the same problem. I give a personal welcome to this measure, although I do not know what it will do to the sales of that well-reputed volume, Renton and Brown.
The production of this document will give great encouragement to those involved in the law of Scotland who would like to see it adapted to meet modern circumstances, even though, in this instance, it is purely clarification of work done throughout the centuries. Having started on this task of a major clarification of the law on criminal procedure in Scotland, I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will now set to work and provide parliamentary time for reforming the law of diligence, reforming the law on conveyancing, and dealing with the scandal of the lack of time which has been given to the reform of the Scottish divorce law. I appreciate that time is short for legal reforms of that sort, but I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will press the Scottish Assembly into action as quickly as possible to deal with the badly needed reform of Scottish domestic legislation.

12.18 a.m.

Mr. Daniel Awdry: I thank the Lord Advocate for having neatly introduced a Bill of 464 clauses and nine schedules with such clarity and immense speed. I do not come from Scotland, but I am a lawyer and I believe that this consolidation of legislation is long overdue. I am sure that the consolidation will be of great assistance to those who practise in the criminal courts in Scotland. I therefore welcome the Bill.

12.19 a.m.

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: I cannot share the general welcome which has been given to the Bill. I say that not merely as a member of the Joint Select Committee which helped to put it


before the House. As a practising lawyer I can see the great difficulties involved in codification. Codification is one of those solutions to or remedies for the confused state of the law which everyone thinks will produce simple or more easily understandable law within the compass of one book. But it never happens in that way. In practice, what we have here is an unrelated Bill purporting to consolidate existing Scottish law on criminal procedure which within days will be out of date, so much so that within the passage of this Bill it will be necessary to undo the work which the Joint Select Committee did by revising certain phrases and terminologies. Within a few days after that will come into force the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act, which will, I imagine, affect Clause 349 and certain other clauses dealing with what happens in connection with previous convictions of defendants.
I refer to these points only because this is a perfect example of something which, on the face of it, appears to be an asset— a useful guide to laymen and lawyers in dealing with problems— but which, in practice, is nonsense, because within a matter of months it will be almost impossible to find anything in the measure which is up to date.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House—[Mr. Stoddart.]

Committee this day.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY POWERS BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

The Parliamentary Secretary, Law Officers' Department (Mr. Arthur Davidson): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
This Bill is a straightforward, non-controversial measure which consolidates the outstanding provisions of the Ministry of Supply Act 1939 and the enactments and instruments amending those provisions with the amendments which give effect to the recommendations in the reports of the Law Commission and the Scottish Law Commission.
I am sure that the House would wish to pay a tribute once again to both Law

Commissions for the painstaking work that they have done in preparing this and other consolidation measures which help to simplify the law and make the statute books a little less forbidding.
This measure has been through the other place without amendment, having been introduced there by the Lord Chancellor, and it has also been scrutinised by the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills. I pay tribute to the Joint Committee. The work that it does is hardly glamorous, it is very hard. and. as the hon. Members for Chippenham (Mr. Awdry) and Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) know well, being members of it, it seldom gets the headlines. The House would probably like to show its appreciation of the Committee and its chairman, Lord Simon of Glaisdale.

Mr. Daniel Awdry: I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for moving the Second Reading briefly and concisely. His kind remarks about the Joint Select Committee on Consolidation Bills will be much appreciated by the Committee. Those of us who serve on it are grateful for the wise guidance we receive from the chairman, and I pay my tribute to his patience and understanding. This Bill will be a useful consolidation measure, and we welcome it.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.— [Mr. Stoddart.]

Bill immediately considered in Committee.

[Mr. OSCAR MURTON in the Chair]

Clauses 1 to 8 ordered to stand part or the Bill.

Clause 9

SHORT TITLE, COMMENCEMENT AND EXTENT

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Keith Stainton: My only comment is that the proceedings seem to be far too amicable. I am wondering naively what this is all about. Perhaps we may have some contributions.

The Chairman: I may inform the hon. Member that this is a matter of consolidation.

Mr. Stainton: To know that it is a consolidation measure does not help me very much. This Bill is a fairly substantial document, running to several pages. One has seen enacted critical measures much less cumbrous than this. All we have heard are congratulations.

The Chairman: Perhaps I should inform the hon. Member that the Bill has been through the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills, and we are discussing Clause 9.

Mr. Stainton: Whether or not it has been through that Committee I do not know. I am a member of a Select Committee and a Standing Committee, and am preoccupied with other proceedings of the House. I have intruded upon these proceedings because I wish to inform myself. We have had a speech from the Parliamentary Secretary and congratulations from the Opposition Front Bench. I do not know what the Bill is about, and where it is leading us. However naively, I believe that I am entitled to ask what the Bill is about.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: On a point of order, Mr. Murton. I am fortunate enough to have the Adjournment debate and I commend the Minister for the efficient and comprehensive way in which he introduced the measure. So complete was his explanation that I am sure most hon. Members will agree that it is not possible to add to our enlightenment on the important provisions of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedules I and 2 agreed to.

Bill reported, without amendment.

Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Third Reading), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, without amendment.

Mr. Bob Cryer: I want to comment on the Third Reading.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): The hon. Member is too late. The House gave me instructions that the Question on the Third Reading was to be put forthwith. Much as I would like to hear the hon. Gentleman, I shall have to await another occasion.

STATUTE LAW (REPEALS) BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

12.31 a.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary, Law Officers' Department (Mr. Arthur Davidson): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I think that I can deal with this matter even more briefly than with the earlier measure. This Bill repeals 40 whole Acts and parts of other Acts, all of which are no longer in practical use. They range as far back as the year 1495. Like the consolidation measure it flows from the work of the Law Commission and the Scottish Law Commission. The measure has also been through the other place and has been considered by the Joint Committee. I commend the Bill to the House.

12.32 a.m.

Mr. Daniel Awdry: 1 shall not make a long speech. This is a consolidation measure and we welcome the brief way in which it was introduced by the Minister. The matter was fully discussed in Committee. We wish to raise no objection to the measure; indeed. we welcome it.

12.33 a.m.

Mr. Bob Cryer: I am grateful for this opportunity to take part in the debate. I wish to say how disturbing it is that this measure should be launched on a sea of platitudes. It may have been scrutinised by a committee, but the point of Parliament is that we are a legislative Chamber and are expected to exercise a degree of scrutiny.
I must point out that the Minister's introduction to this measure was less than I expected. I hoped for a more comprehensive explanation. After all, the House is not geared merely to those hon. Members who have Adjournment debates. We are here to discuss matters which affect the nation. Some of the provisions of this measure— measures which


obviously are being discussed with great haste and not before what one might call an "assembled throng "— could have serious consequences.
No doubt my hon. Friend the Minister who introduced the Bill is fully capable of explaining what is happening, but I want to be proud of my hon. Friend. I want to tell my constituents what a grand job he is doing. I should like him to give a much fuller outline of the legislation with which the House is dealing. I do not think that that exercise has been satisfactorily carried out this morning.
Parliament is not a rubber stamp, and 1 hope that it never will be. I certainly hope that, following the charade in Dublin, this Parliament will never become the rubber stamp that Brussels would no doubt like us to become.

12.34 a.m.

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: The hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) has, not for the first time, got it all wrong. If he wished to assist the House in its deliberations, he should have taken a look at the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Bill. In that case he would have had something to complain about, since nearly 500 clauses went through the House virtually on the nod. That was a consolidation measure.
On this occasion I can give this Bill an unqualified welcome. I am sure the hon. Member for Keighley will agree that the Bill with which we are now dealing seeks to repeal certain statutes. It seeks to get rid of 40 Acts which are no longer applicable. My only regret is that we have proposed the abolition of only 40 existing Acts of Parliament, some of which go back hundreds of years. The work of the Joint Select Committee would be better directed towards getting rid of obsolete, useless law, with less time being spent on the codification and consolidation of existing Acts, which are often out of date days after we consolidate them, such is the pace at which we pass new laws.

Mr. Cryer: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that because of a slight technicality I was robbed of the chance to say a few words on the previous Bill. Therefore, my words concerned the

general tenor of legislation, and were not specifically directed to this Bill.

Mr. Stanbrook: I shall not refer at length to the device by which the hon. Gentleman has managed, in his few words on this Bill, to speak of his objections to an earlier Bill.
The Joint Select Committee exists to receive recommendations on what substantive existing law should be considered for repeal, and then to recommend to both Houses those matters which it considers should properly be put before them for repeal. It is a most valuable process. Unfortunately, each year we repeal fewer Acts than the number of new ones we put on the statute book. That is not progress. More consideration should be given to a higher output of repeals by the Committee, with less codification and clarification.

12.37 a.m.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) and the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stan-brook) made a reasonable point when they suggested that when consolidation or repeal measures are put before the House we should be given, despite what has been done in Committees, the benefit of the essence of the wisdom of the Government and Opposition Front Benches. For example, the Bill of Rights — enshrining the principle of no taxation without representation— has already been repealed by our accession to the European treaties, but it has not been mentioned. We look forward to the time when we revert to having no taxation without representation.
I make no complaint against my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, for whose ability and diligence I have great admiration. Together we have tried, on many occasions, to put the Tory Government right. It is only to be regretted that when we have a Labour Government we are not sufficiently to the Left. My hon. Friend has breadth of knowledge and the inspiration that we have come to expect from him, yet we do not know from him exactly what the Bill does.

12.38 a.m.

Mr. A. J. Beith: The hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) told me in a nutshell more


about the Bill than the Parliamentary Secretary had said in introducing it. I thank the hon. Gentleman for that.
The hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) was right to stress that legislation should not go through the House without proper explanation, and with discussion where necessary. He was honest enough to admit that by a technicality he was speaking not simply to this Bill but to the previous one. His remarks also applied to legislation that completed its passage through the House yesterday— the Finance Bill— on which there was little opportunity for proper discussion. Those remarks should be noted by his right hon. and hon. Friends.

12.39 a.m.

Mr. William Wilson: For about 10 years I have served on the Joint Consolidation Committee— the driest Committee of the House. I often think that the Members who serve on it deserve, if not the Victoria Cross, perhaps the Iron Cross for their services to the House. As one who has served on the Committee, I am glad that at long last an interest is being taken in the work that we do. I am sorry to hear hon. Members complaining now that they are not told enough about what we do.
As for this Bill, when I am asked in years to come what I did in Parliament, I shall say that I reduced the size of the statute book by about 100 pages. When I think of all the excitement aroused by an hon. Member who puts one simple measure on the statute book, I am convinced that serving on the Joint Committee on Consolidation, removing statutes, is a much more valuable exercise. I think that I am of more use to the community doing that than are those who put measures on the statute book.

12.40 a.m.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: As another member of the Joint Committee on Consolidation, I am pleased to agree with the Minister and with the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Wilson).
It is clear from the interest being shown by the hon. Members for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) and Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara) in the activities of the Committee that their names should be put forward for service on it. I should consider it a great pleasure and honour to do

that. I am certain that they could make a substantial contribution to its deliberations.

Mr. McNamara: Will the hon. Gentleman accept that my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) and I have the utmost confidence in the ability of the hon. Members at present serving on the Committee? In my view, they deserve not the Victoria Cross but the George Cross for the hard work that they do. What we are saying, however, is that when a Bill is presented to this House after the Committee's deliberations, we should be given a fuller explanation than simply that it concerns one statute — going back to the fifteenth century— which should be repealed.

12.41 a.m.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I hope that I did not give the impression just now that such was my impatience to proceed with my Adjournment debate that I was not paying proper respect to these proceedings. But I assure hon. Members that I shall not use my own legal expertise to detain the House for very long on this measure.
The hon. Members for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) and Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara) would impress us more by their thirst for knowledge of this Bill if they had bothered, before coming into the Chamber, to read even the Short Title or the Explanatory Memorandum. The hon. Member for Keighley destroyed his point by making it clear that he had no idea of the subject matter of the Bill. It is obvious, therefore, that he would receive no illumination if the Minister had given a detailed explanation of it.
I commend the work done by the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Wilson) and his colleagues, but I have doubts about the effort which goes into these consolidation or repealing measures. I share some of the misgivings of my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook), although he slightly overstated his case on the Scottish measure.
The Law Commission, the Joint Committee and the parliamentary draftsmen spend a great deal of time producing consolidation measures or repeals, but I fear that the practical consequence is slight for those who practise law. Consolidation measures are overtaken


constantly by events. Repeals of this kind are unnecessary. What it comes to is that we are amending 140 Acts of Parliament which were doing no harm. No one has cited any of them for 100 years. They have never interfered in the process of the administration of justice, and they have had no effect on any adjudication made by the courts.
It may offend someone's sense of neatness that there are on the statute book provisions about the appointment of rectors to various parishes in Lincolnshire, and so on, but they do no harm. The skills of my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) and of the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East, to say nothing of those of the parliamentary draftsmen, would be better employed devising some improvement in the new legislation being turned out from this House, which causes constant trouble to those practising the law because it is so ill-drafted and so little understood.
With those few comments on the work of this great Committee, I trust that the matter has been adequately debated, that the Committee proceedings will not be too protracted, and that important matters may be reached on the Adjournment.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—(Mr. Thomas Cox.)

Bill immediately considered in Committee; reported, without amendment.

Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Third Reading), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, without amendment.

ADJOURNMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Thomas Cox.]

TEACHER TRAINING COLLEGES (CLOSURE)

12.47 a.m.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I am glad at this early stage to have the opportunity of raising the subject of the redundancies that are taking place in colleges of education all over the country, including my own constituency. I begin by making it clear that the redundancies that are about to take place arise out of the policy begun by the previous Government and continued by the present one of reducing the number of teacher training places in colleges of education and amalgamating the reduced colleges of education with other institutions of higher education to give a wider range of subject-matter and syllabus in the amalgamated larger polytechnics and other institutions.
I agreed with that policy when it was instituted. It seemed a regrettable necessity to have to reduce the number of teacher training places to avoid oversupply, and I continue to agree with that policy and the welcome diversification that is taking place in colleges of education where former teacher training colleges are acquiring other courses or being amalgamated with other institutions.
My anxiety is to ensure that that policy, when put into practice, is not carried out in such a way as to cause confusion and serious difficulties for those who have made their careers as lecturers and as staff in colleges of education. I raise this matter, which I think will have wider national implications, because my constituency happens to be particularly affected in the early stages.
This is because although at the moment few precise details have emerged about the way in which individual institutions will be affected, my constituency contains many members of staff of the large Nottingham College of Education, at Clifton, which is to be much reduced in size. The staff is concerned with problems, the details of which I have put to the Minister in letters. The staff is particularly seeking to maintain the high quality and supply of teachers of shortage subjects that are greatly needed in our schools.
In my constituency there is also one of the first two colleges which has been marked for complete closure. That is a Roman Catholic college of education— the Mary Ward College, at Keyworth, in Nottinghamshire. The closure of that college was agreed to in October 1974, after I and others had made representations against closure to the Minister. After the Minister had consulted the Roman Catholic heirarchy it was agreed by those responsible for the administration of the college that its closure was inevitable. That has continued to give rise to some problems in the college.
Students and staff are anxious that they should be allowed a full three-year rundown period until 1977, so that all students at the college can complete their courses. At the moment I am in the middle of an exchange of correspondence with Lord Crowther-Hunt, the Minister of State at the Department of Education and Science. I am trying to get a quick assurance from him that the full three-year rundown period will be guaranteed.
At the moment there are other matters with which the Minister can deal. I am content to leave that problem to the discussions which Lord Crowther-Hunt will be having. I hope he will soon be able to give me a reassuring reply. The unrest being created at Mary Ward College illustrates some other weaknesses in the preparation for the rundown and closure of a college of this kind. There is considerable unrest, particularly among the staff, who realise that as a result of the decision their jobs cannot continue after 1977. The staff at Mary Ward College, in particular, will be among the first to be affected by this nation-wide policy.
This situation has implications for reassuring both staff and students and for making the position of both clear. A full three-year guarantee period is needed. That means that the staff must be persuaded that they are well provided for in redundancy terms and can feel secure, so that they do not have to look for alternative employment during the three-year period and the college runs as effectively as possible until the last moment and the students get the education to which they are entitled.
I recently met most of the staff at the Mary Ward College. It was as a result of the fears and doubts which they expressed to me then that I was induced

to apply to Mr. Speaker for this debate. I am afraid that, far from feeling secure or reassured about their position when the college closes, the staff have grave doubts about their position.
They were beginning to become suspicious about the bona fides of the Department because of the way in which they were being treated. There were great gaps in their understanding of the precise terms of their redundancy arrangements. I have given the Minister notice of some of the detailed questions that I would like him to answer for the benefit of my constituents and others. If there are gaps in my understanding of the position and the way in which I express these questions, this is simply a reflection of the fact that the complete staff of the college was not able to spell out to me in detail what their position is—despite all their efforts to get guidance from the Department and the appropriate union.
I have some specific questions about the Crombie Code as applied to teacher training and those who are to leave education altogether, as well as about the Burnham situation on salary safeguarding for those who remain in education and are entitled to such safeguarding under the Burnham-Pelham arrangements.
As I understand it, the Crombie Code is to be applied to teacher training for those who are going out of education altogether. Crombie was devised for 9 civil servants and was applied particularly to local government redundancies. It has not yet been re-phrased and interpreted for application to colleges of education. As redundancies are now facing the staff in this college the time has come when the exact application of Crombie ought to be made clear. The suspicion has been voiced to me that the difficulty is that the civil servants trying to do this in the Department of Education and Science are so burdened down by the problems of implementing the Houghton recommendations that they do not have the time to apply themselves to clarifying the Crombie Code with the urgency required.
The points that I should like clarified — I know that the Minister will be helpful— are concerned, first, with the issue of long-term compensation for those who will go out of education because of these


redundancies. The first problem relates to the calculation of reckonable service for the purpose of this long-term compensation. My understanding is that the Department's present proposals are that the only period to be taken into account is the period of years when a lecturer has been contributing to the superannuation scheme that is available to him.
It has been expressed clearly to me in a persuasive way that this is a very narrow interpretation of what reckonable service might mean. When one looks at how the Burnham and Pelham scales are applied for the purpose of increments, one sees that the teaching world is used to taking years of overseas teaching experience, industrial experience and war service as well into account in reaching a definition of recognised teaching service for certain periods under the salary scales. I trust that the Minister will say that the Department is prepared to take a more flexible view and will take a generous approach in deciding what is the reckonable service of a teacher for the purposet of long-term compensation.
When long-term compensation is arrived at, I urge the Minister to look at inflation-proofing of long-term compensation, particularly for those who will be under 55 when they are made redundant and will not get the protection of the pension increase Acts. The Minister will know of my interest on other occasions in this House in the subject of pensions and long-term provisions of that kind. In present inflationary circumstances, to look at long-term compensation or long-term provisions of any kind without regard to inflation-proofing is to offer someone a meaningless protection in his later years.
The second item under Crombie is resettlement compensation. This I take, from its description, to be compensation in a case where someone has to move to another part of the country in order to take up some alternative employment. I should like to know whether it is available only to those going out of education. I hope the Minister can say whether it can be paid in what will be numerous cases when a lecturer has to move out of his area where he has been lecturing to a job in education in another part of the country. Will he receive resettlement compensation in addition to the salary

safeguarding that is available under the Burnham-Pelham arrangements?
On the question of safeguarding under the Burnham-Pelham arrangement, I put to the Minister some specific questions. First, will he define continuity of service for the purpose of qualifying? In present circumstances some people will find that they cannot get another job in education straight away. I trust that if they have a short period in another job they will not be debarred from salary safeguarding.
I should like to know the range of employment in education to which salary safeguarding applies and how narrowly education will be defined. Will teacher centres and advisory teaching posts on Burnham scales provide safeguarded employment?
Likewise, why does safeguarding seen, to apply only to the first job taken after moving from a college of education, and not to subsequent jobs, even if they are in education?
I should also like the Minister to reassure me that, as I believe to be the case, the wording of the appropriate Statutory Instrument 747/1974, that a lecturer is
 deemed for all salary purposes to hold the post that he held immediately before the closure and reorganisation,
means that he also is deemed to receive any increment or regrading given subsequent to his leaving.
I hope that on the question of salary safeguarding those points are not too detailed for the Minister to shed a little light on them.
Finally, I should like the Minister to tell me what assurance, if any, can be given to the non-academic staff who appear to have none of this protection at colleges such as Mary Ward College, because their future seems very uncertain.
I apologise if I seem to be setting out a negotiating case which is normally conducted with the Department. I know that discussions are taking place with the ATCDE. However, not all my constituents concerned are members of ATCDE, nor are all those in colleges of education, nor are all those who are members in touch with their association's negotiators. The details should be produced now and be publicly available.


These people need to know now, when they are making plans to decide whether to stay in the college for a three-year rundown period, precisely what their position is.
I ask the Under-Secretary to take this opportunity to describe with the maximum of clarity and detail the precise position of lecturers and others in colleges of education who face redundancy.

1.1 a.m.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) and to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for agreeing to allow me two minutes on this problem. It directly affects my constituency, which has two training colleges in it. One— Anthony Training College— will probably go out of existence and the other will probably be absorbed into a new form of educational institute under the Hull education authority.
The points I wish to make are supplementary to those made by the hon. Member for Rushcliffe. Although our colleges are those which are most threatened, there is nevertheless, over the whole sphere of further education for teacher training, this same threat. If we cut down the number of students by 40 per cent.— a policy imposed not so much by this Government as by the previous Government— those who will be affected to the greatest degree will be parents and students.
Lecturers declared redundant from one college do not know whether it is safe to apply to another college, because the coherence of the plan of closures has not come out. There is, secondly, a feeling amongst lecturers that the colleges are being picked off one by one by the Department of Education and Science and that there has been little consultation with the staff and college authorities involved.
Equally, lecturers are unsure of many aspects of the Crombie Code. They have a feeling that this document will not be seen by the majority of lecturers until it is laid before the House some time in June or July.
Lecturers hope that they will get the same sort of protection as local government

officers got. Amongst the things they demand are that no further vacancies in colleges of education should be advertised until staff declared redundant have been taken up. Also, they are wondering whether early retirement could be encouraged amongst more senior staff in terms of years, thus making vacancies for the younger redundant staff. In particular, they are concerned about the need for retraining of members of staff who may wish to go back into teaching but who, because of the work they have been doing in colleges, do not have the necessary skills. There is the problem, as the hon. Member for Rushcliffe said, of non-academic staff— administrators—who in general circumstances would be employed by local authorities but who in this case will not be.
Finally, what will happen to lecturers who, out of loyalty to students, particularly on divinity courses, remain to the end of the life of their college and then find that there are no vacancies for them when the time comes for them to seek employment elsewhere?

1.4 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) for the very reasoned way in which he raised this serious problem and for the notice that he gave me of the subjects that he wanted to raise. I shall try to deal with the points raised by the hon. Member and with those raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara). I know the interest of the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith). Over the past few months we have had talks about Alnwick.
The total national requirement for teacher training places will have declined sharply by the end of the decade. It is the Government's policy that, wherever possible, colleges should develop new courses outside teacher training in order to make the fullest possible use of the places no longer required for the training of teachers.
Changes of the magnitude that we have in mind, involving a major reorganisation of the teacher training system, will unfortunately, but inevitably, mean that some individual members of staff will be displaced.
The reorganisation will be taking place over a period of years so that large numbers are unlikely to be made redundant at any one time. It is not possible at this stage to say what the total will be. Some will be absorbed to replace natural wastage due to retirement. Others, no doubt, will seek posts elsewhere in the education service— in other establishments of higher and further education, in schools, or in educational administration, depending upon their qualifications and experience.
I think that it would be helpful in responding to the various points raised by the hon. Member if I set them in context by outlining briefly the measures which have been taken to protect the interests of both teaching and non-teaching staffs in the colleges of education who are affected by the current reorganisation of higher education. I would stress this has been a joint effort by the Department, the local authority associations and the teacher associations, to whom I pay tribute.
The first main measure is safeguarding. This means that a teacher in a college of education who loses his post as a result of the closure or reorganisation of the college will, subject to certain conditions, continue to receive the salary for the post he has lost where his new post in teaching carries a lower salary. Previously, the only safeguarding available to a college of education teacher related to a post in another college of education. Now the management and teacher panels of the Burnham Committees have agreed that it shall apply to a college of education teacher obtaining a post in a school or a college of further education. This extension of safeguarding will be specially valuable for those college of education teachers who lose their posts but decide, as I hope most of them will, to remain in teaching service.
Secondly, on the initiative of the Association of Teachers in Colleges and Departments of Education, a staff redepolyment bureau has been set up to assist and advise college of education staff seeking other employment. No charge will be made for its services. The greater part of the costs will be met by a grant from the Department.
Thirdly, the Government have agreed to provide compensation, on the basis of what is familiarly known as the Crombie

Code, to any teaching or non-teaching staff, full-time or part-time, who are made redundant directly as a result of the current reorganisation. The Crombie Code represents the most generous and comprehensive compensation available in the public service. It is applied only where there has been a statutory intervention with established expectations of employment. The statutory intervention in this case will be a direction given by the Secretary of State requiring a college to discontinue its courses or to reduce its intake of students. The direction will be given under new further education regulations which are currently being prepared.
The compensation payable under the Crombie Code is of three kinds: resettlement compensation, long-term compensation and retirement compensation.
Resettlement compensation consists of a lump sum calculated on the basis either of the applicant's length of service or his age. It can be equivalent to six months' pay, and is never less than three months' pay.
Long-term compensation is paid to staff of 5 years' standing who have not reached retiring age. They may be compensated for complete loss of employment or reduction in pay. Compensation is based on length of service and age and can amount at maximum to two-thirds of former pay.
Retirement compensation is payable from normal retirement age on the same terms as long-term compensation. It consists of a payment equal to the pension benefits to which the person is entitled, plus an addition related to the period between the date of loss and normal retiring age. There are also provisions for payments on death and payments of retirement compensation to people who have no pension rights.
I turn now to the detailed points raised by the hon. Gentleman. If there are any that I do not have time to reach and the hon. Gentleman follows them up, I shall be only too willing to discuss them with him. The Department will apply the Crombie Code to college of education staff by making regulations under Section 24 of the Superannuation Act 1972. The regulations are at present being drafted. They will be circulated in draft to the interested bodies in April, and the Secretary of State expects to lay them before Parliament in June.
Safeguarding applies to the teacher who — here I quote from the Burnham Salaries Documents—
 loses that post as a result of the closure or reorganisation of the college but continues in full time teaching service in an educational establishment ".
Although the Secretary of State is represented on the Burnham Management Panel, the provisions in the salaries documents embody agreements reached in negotiation between the management and teacher panels. It is not for me to interpret these provisions, but I must say that, in the light of the passage I have quoted, I would have thought that a teacher who had a break in his teaching service would not be entitled to a safeguarded salary on his return to teaching. The hon. Member can take that up with me afterwards if he so wishes.
Equally, the Burnham safeguarding provisions would not statutorily apply to employment in teachers' centres or advisory work. The salary paid in such employment is a matter for the local education authority, who could decide that the post justified a salary equal to that the teacher received in a college of education.
Safeguarding is not restricted to the first post obtained after the loss of the college of education post. The salaries document says that safeguarding will cease to apply to a teacher— here again I quote—
 who leaves a post to which appointed after the closure or reorganisation except on movement to another teaching post under arrangements approved by the employing authority, such approval not being unreasonably withheld ".
On the scope of safeguarding, the answer is that a teacher is treated exactly as he would have been treated had he remained in his previous post. He receives increments and pay increases and any other benefits relating to his former post. This assumes, of course, that he does not get a teaching post which itself has a higher salary than his previous post.
Resettlement compensation is payable to a member of staff who loses his post as a result of a direction from the Secretary of State if he has worked in the college for two years and satisfies certain conditions in the regulations, such as, that he has not been offered a post comparable

to the one lost, or a suitable post in the same locality.
Teaching overseas or service in the forces would count for the purpose of assessing compensation if such service is accepted as contributory service under the teachers superannuation scheme.
The compensation regulations will not themselves include provision for inflation proofing, but the Pensions Increase Act 1971 applies to long-term and retirement compensation. Increases under the Act would apply to staff aged 55 or over. If a member of staff was made redundant, say at 50, then at 55, the increases relating to the previous five years are then applied to his compensation. Thereafter a review is made annually.
Non-academic staff will be covered by the compensation regulations. I believe I have covered most of the hon. Member's points.
We appreciate that the redundancy of one individual is a serious matter, that is why I value the co-operation we have had. The Department will continue to keep in close touch with all interests concerned, and particularly with the Association of Teachers in Colleges and Departments of Education, the executive of which has expressed unanimously its appreciation of the efforts we are making. They work closely with us. If there is any matter which hon. Members wish to probe further it will be seriously and sympathetically considered by my Department.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: If I might with leave, Mr. Murton, I should like to thank the Minister for that helpful reply. Some points were cleared up satisfactorily and to others the replies were disappointing, but I am grateful for the explanation.
I want to raise one point: when the draft of the Crombie Code is made available to interested parties, will it be so to individual lecturers or to staff, college by college, and not necessarily only to the association? Not all are members of the association, but they would be interested in seeing the draft before it is laid before this House.

Mr. Armstrong: I take that point on board. I shall certainly consider it, but I should not like to give a complete assurance.

Mr. McNamara: I should like to say, quickly, that that is a very good reply, and that a lot of suspicions have been cleared away.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at thirteen minutes past One o'clock.